Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He says, "why did we turn over the federal reserve to private bankers? what possible benfefit did we get in return?"

And he says, "instead of our money being backed by gold, its worthless".

Just continue to not see Freedom to Fascism and claim you are informed.

We didn't turn over the Federal Reserve to private bankers, Congress turned over their Constitutional duties to private bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Ron Paul doesn't want to "take back" the Federal Reserve, he wants to get rid of it completely.

I am aware that our money is not backed by gold, but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. You're clearly misunderstanding Dr. Paul's intentions.

No, he just can't say it like it is. Even when he "hinted" the truth to the public, you see how the GOP treated him in the debates.

The next day Ron Paul was deemed the winner of the debates, and somehow wasn't invited back.

Just because you don't know all the facts doesn't make them any less real. Educate yourself.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Ron Paul does not support nationalizing any banks, he believes in the free market.

 

[editec]

The US government should not nationalize banks.

But if they pay for a bank they sure as hell ought to own it.

That has nothing to do with nationalizing it.

when you nationalize something you don't pay for it, you take it by emminent domain (AKA steal it)

 

[Charles_Main]

The US government should not nationalize banks.

But if they pay for a bank they sure as hell ought to own it.

That has nothing to do with nationalizing it.

when you nationalize something you don't pay for it, you take it by emminent domain (AKA steal it)

Correct, yet the results could end up the same.

 

[editec]

The US government should not nationalize banks.

But if they pay for a bank they sure as hell ought to own it.

That has nothing to do with nationalizing it.

when you nationalize something you don't pay for it, you take it by emminent domain (AKA steal it)

Correct, yet the results could end up the same.

I think the only thing that we are currently nationalizing are the DEBTS of these banks.

Isn't that generous of us?

These banks which exist as incorporated legal entities at our largess, have gone bankrupt.

But because our masters inWashinton have allowed them to become so powerful, and because those institutions are so integrated with the system of power and control that keeps those masters in power, the American taxpayers are paying to save their incompetent asses, and yet the masters are not nationalizing what the American people are very likely going to wildly overpay for.

Now there is talk that the banks will repay these indulgences.

I sincerely hope that will be the case, but frankly, I am very dubious.

We gave them the license to print money and they screwed the captialistic pooch.

They should be hanged, instead of saved and the bond holders that they screwed shoud lose every fuckng cent they'd invested.

And if that happened, then this nation's economy would be a complete shambles for lord only knows how long.

Sucks to be us, huh?

We are so dependent on a system which has been screwing us for generations, that even when the system that keeps us enslaved has died of its own corrupt ion and greed, we must revive it or suffer consequences which we are informed are catastropic.

The alternative, we are informed (sotto voce, of course) is depression, probably followed by low level anarchy, likely followed by some sort of horrific totalitarian government.

Much like, say, Germany in the 1930s.

 

[Shogun]

Listen, dude.. if your sole rebuttal amounts to "unemployment is not real despite widescale hemmoraging of jobs because the one number I choose to look at doesn't suggest as much to me given how I interpret it" then you still lose this debate. Why don't you get busy posting articles that convey how the US is INCREASING GOOD PAYING JOBS the likes of which our Greatest Generation would have envied instead of tossing out a few non-sequiters? You people didn't believe that an economic clusterfuck was even POSSIBLE until you finally had to admit that shit was hitting the fan. Yes, hemmoraging jobs IS supported. How many articles do you want to see, Bern? Opportunities to check out at wal mart for min wage with no bennys after building their LIVES around GM plant jobs isn't an opportunity. Pretending that the entire populace of America can all become Java programmers is a joke.

You're the one severly lacking in listening skills shogun. What is NOT in the BofLS unemployment that is driving it lower than what you think it should be? Why is it businesses responsibility to provide good paying jobs? Why shouldn't individuals take on at least some responsibility and garner skills that businesses find valuable.

And yes, it IS the business of the collective government to preserve the SOL of the United States instead of remain the bitch to global capitalism. Are you kidding me? Our gov is not some neutral entity that sees a US citizen on par with a Cheap labor Chinaman. Yes, our gov has the DUTY to support American steel over French steel. Let Sarkozy support his steel. When these nations start trading at something better than a stark fucking DEFICIT with the US THEN they can start complaining about protectionism. Your OPINOIN about what makes this country weaker just doesn't have the same kick this side of the failure of your pet system, dude. do you often ask anyone else with faulty products about their expert opinions?

Okay it's governments job to provide for your standard of living. What is YOUR minimal responsibility to society then?

While you are trying to crunch hypothetical statistics no less than 2 THOUSAND jobs have been cut from factories in and around the mid missouri area between Columbia and Jefferson City. Perhaps you have some kind of talking point for these people who seem not to have been counted in order to achieve a facade of an unemployment rate number.

It's possible some weren't counted, maybe if they found jobs right away, but that isn't likely. That's the only way I can think of that they wouldn't be counted. Do you have some other evidence they weren't counted?

Dude, it's happening. Weather you want to admit it or not. Weather you want to INTERPRET it the same way I do or not. Again, your side was busy telling us about how strong the economy was and how there WAS NO PROBLEM (What, me worry?).... . until the shit hit the fan and the illusion burst. As it is, I can provide example after example of jobs being shipped overseas for the sake of cheap third world labor. And, at the end of the day, wal mart jobs and java programming just aint saving the fucking American day.

I don't have a 'side'. I never said their wan't a problem. I was hoping after your absence perhaps you would have matured enough that you no longer attribute positions to people that they don't have for the chicken shit purpose of bolstering your own argument. (Deja Vu)

Now now, Bern.. Don't get all poopy pants on me here. You know damn well that this is not the first time we've argued about this topic and you know damn well that we BOTH represent the sides that we are defending.


WHY is it American Businesses responsibility to provide jobs with a decent SOL? Two reasons: They benefit from the AMERICAN CONSUMER and they benefit from being in an AMERICAN LOCATION. Do you think many American wold headquarters are GOING to places where the cheap labor is? Fuck no. THEY stay right here in America where it's safe. Do you think products made in China are SOLD to China? Fuck no because America HAS BEEN, historically, the nation with a liesure class that has money to spend on shit. Thus, it's imparative that our Gov preserve this status OR, MUCH LIKE EVERYTHING THE FUCK ELSE, that status becomes EXPORTED. By normalizing OUR value of labor with that of a third world country, not only do capitalistas undermine American SOLs but, they risk losing our unique consumer status while totally ignoring stagnant consumption elsewhere. How many Japanese cars get advertised in Nigeria? How many MEXICANS are working their asses off in a NAfta factory that are able to spend any more than they could PRE-nafta? We STILL have a staggering loss when it comes to trade deficits, Bern. Your position would be stronger were it not the case that America is being forced to suck dick AND take it up the ass by globalist capitalistas.


Okay it's governments job to provide for your standard of living. What is YOUR minimal responsibility to society then?

To do the job warrented in order to be paid. What the hell do you think made our greatest society so damn great, Bern? It sure as hell wasn't industrial age robber barons or dust bowl depressions. It sure the hell wasn't outsourced labor or global capitalista wet dreams. Learn the Batista lesson, dude.




It's possible some weren't counted, maybe if they found jobs right away, but that isn't likely. That's the only way I can think of that they wouldn't be counted. Do you have some other evidence they weren't counted?

I could post article after article conveying what American general labor has been knowing for a while now. But, instead of boring you with examples why don't you take a gander at this article and see if it doesn't echo a few of my points.


The Dysfunctional Duo
The solution for East Asia, and China in particular, is to change its economic strategy. Instead of relying so heavily on exports, China will have to increase its domestic consumption. It will have to invest in upgrading its infrastructure and establish social insurance programs so that its citizens, instead of hoarding money, will be able to spend more. It will have to allow wage levels to rise, creating a more stable domestic market for its goods.

Devising a successful economic strategy for the United States is a good deal trickier. When our economic elites offshored much of our manufacturing sector to East Asia and other cheap-labor lands, and took arms against union labor here at home, they ensured that most of the American jobs created over the past quarter-century would come in retail and service sectors that paid less than manufacturing. Every year for the past couple of decades, we've added lots more sales-clerk, cashier and fast-food jobs than we've created in high technology or energy. Yet Americans have been able to maintain middle-class living standards -- not through rising income but through rising debt, available to us because China has funneled the immense revenue it amassed selling us goods back to us in the form of loans that we can no longer repay.

Harold Meyerson - China and the United States - the Dysfunctional Duo

 

[sealybobo]

We didn't turn over the Federal Reserve to private bankers, Congress turned over their Constitutional duties to private bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Ron Paul doesn't want to "take back" the Federal Reserve, he wants to get rid of it completely.

I am aware that our money is not backed by gold, but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. You're clearly misunderstanding Dr. Paul's intentions.

No, he just can't say it like it is. Even when he "hinted" the truth to the public, you see how the GOP treated him in the debates.

The next day Ron Paul was deemed the winner of the debates, and somehow wasn't invited back.

Just because you don't know all the facts doesn't make them any less real. Educate yourself.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Ron Paul does not support nationalizing any banks, he believes in the free market.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

 

[sealybobo]

We didn't turn over the Federal Reserve to private bankers, Congress turned over their Constitutional duties to private bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Ron Paul doesn't want to "take back" the Federal Reserve, he wants to get rid of it completely.

I am aware that our money is not backed by gold, but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. You're clearly misunderstanding Dr. Paul's intentions.

No, he just can't say it like it is. Even when he "hinted" the truth to the public, you see how the GOP treated him in the debates.

The next day Ron Paul was deemed the winner of the debates, and somehow wasn't invited back.

Just because you don't know all the facts doesn't make them any less real. Educate yourself.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Ron Paul does not support nationalizing any banks, he believes in the free market.

I can't wait to hear who you think Ron Paul wants to have running the new Federal Reserve, or treasury, or whatever it will be called, if he is successful at ending the Federal Reserve.

Do you think either

a. The Government will run the treasury

b. We'll accept bids from other bankers and let new bankers run it

c. Whatever other possible idea might be in your little brain.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, he just can't say it like it is. Even when he "hinted" the truth to the public, you see how the GOP treated him in the debates.

The next day Ron Paul was deemed the winner of the debates, and somehow wasn't invited back.

Just because you don't know all the facts doesn't make them any less real. Educate yourself.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Ron Paul does not support nationalizing any banks, he believes in the free market.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Since you feel the need to resort to petty insults I don't feel the need to go through and explain why you're wrong. Just know that your reading comprehension rivals that of a small child.

 

[sealybobo]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Ron Paul does not support nationalizing any banks, he believes in the free market.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Since you feel the need to resort to petty insults I don't feel the need to go through and explain why you're wrong. Just know that your reading comprehension rivals that of a small child.

So who's going to manage the treasury if Ron Paul does away with the Federal Reserve?

You implied that the Free Market would do it? You said Ron Paul believes in the free market. So does that mean he'll have the free market run the treasury after he undoes the Feds? I'm confused.

No Ron Paul isn't going to nationalize the banks. Just the Federal Reserve. Big difference. Are you just being petty about the words I used? You know what I mean.

A renationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again. A renationalization process may also be called reverse privatization.

So Ron Paul is for renationalizing the Federal Reserve.

Sorry if that is a bad word for you. But the world isn't black and white.

 

[Bern80]

WHY is it American Businesses responsibility to provide jobs with a decent SOL? Two reasons: They benefit from the AMERICAN CONSUMER and they benefit from being in an AMERICAN LOCATION. Do you think many American wold headquarters are GOING to places where the cheap labor is? Fuck no. THEY stay right here in America where it's safe. Do you think products made in China are SOLD to China? Fuck no because America HAS BEEN, historically, the nation with a liesure class that has money to spend on shit. Thus, it's imparative that our Gov preserve this status OR, MUCH LIKE EVERYTHING THE FUCK ELSE, that status becomes EXPORTED. By normalizing OUR value of labor with that of a third world country, not only do capitalistas undermine American SOLs but, they risk losing our unique consumer status while totally ignoring stagnant consumption elsewhere. How many Japanese cars get advertised in Nigeria? How many MEXICANS are working their asses off in a NAfta factory that are able to spend any more than they could PRE-nafta? We STILL have a staggering loss when it comes to trade deficits, Bern. Your position would be stronger were it not the case that America is being forced to suck dick AND take it up the ass by globalist capitalistas.

To do the job warrented in order to be paid. What the hell do you think made our greatest society so damn great, Bern? It sure as hell wasn't industrial age robber barons or dust bowl depressions. It sure the hell wasn't outsourced labor or global capitalista wet dreams. Learn the Batista lesson, dude.

These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?

I could post article after article conveying what American general labor has been knowing for a while now. But, instead of boring you with examples why don't you take a gander at this article and see if it doesn't echo a few of my points.


The Dysfunctional Duo
The solution for East Asia, and China in particular, is to change its economic strategy. Instead of relying so heavily on exports, China will have to increase its domestic consumption. It will have to invest in upgrading its infrastructure and establish social insurance programs so that its citizens, instead of hoarding money, will be able to spend more. It will have to allow wage levels to rise, creating a more stable domestic market for its goods.

Devising a successful economic strategy for the United States is a good deal trickier. When our economic elites offshored much of our manufacturing sector to East Asia and other cheap-labor lands, and took arms against union labor here at home, they ensured that most of the American jobs created over the past quarter-century would come in retail and service sectors that paid less than manufacturing. Every year for the past couple of decades, we've added lots more sales-clerk, cashier and fast-food jobs than we've created in high technology or energy. Yet Americans have been able to maintain middle-class living standards -- not through rising income but through rising debt, available to us because China has funneled the immense revenue it amassed selling us goods back to us in the form of loans that we can no longer repay.

Harold Meyerson - China and the United States - the Dysfunctional Duo

I'm sure you could post many articles. that's generally what people who believe something do. they seek out only the material that supports their position and ignore the rest. You have to know that there is a tradeoff. If you become more protectionist you will have inflation, which means there is a trade of between jobs and people's buying power relative to the value of our currency.

 

[BrianH]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson-

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

Apology accepted Kevin

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over
monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and
regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate
control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not
empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary
policy.

(So I was right that the Federal Reserve and Income tax are unconstitutional, plus I was right that it would be the government's job to manage the treasury, not the FREE MARKET, you free market faggot!!! Free market free shmarket! Kick yourself in the balls everytime you say Free market, ok? For Fuck sakes)


In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency
backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing
the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of
monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent
because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket
economy.

Since you feel the need to resort to petty insults I don't feel the need to go through and explain why you're wrong. Just know that your reading comprehension rivals that of a small child.

So who's going to manage the treasury if Ron Paul does away with the Federal Reserve?

You implied that the Free Market would do it? You said Ron Paul believes in the free market. So does that mean he'll have the free market run the treasury after he undoes the Feds? I'm confused.

No Ron Paul isn't going to nationalize the banks. Just the Federal Reserve. Big difference. Are you just being petty about the words I used? You know what I mean.

A renationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again. A renationalization process may also be called reverse privatization.

So Ron Paul is for renationalizing the Federal Reserve.

Sorry if that is a bad word for you. But the world isn't black and white.

Neg repping me and insulting me doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

[Shogun]

You didn't bother reading the article, did you?

Gosh, Bern... there comes a point where you ahve to admit that your plane is, in fact, hurling out of the sky in a firey ball of fuel and metal. Being stubborn won't maintain altitude.


These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?

I disagree that altruism is what it would take. That sounds more like the assumption by capitalistas that greedy people WONT actually take advantage of their fellow man for the sake of a buck. Sound familiar?

and, yes, it does sound realistic. Why? Because, AGAIN, we were once not busy trying to scam American with bullshit free market capitalism carrots dangled in the face of common sense and the product was THE GREAT GENERATION. You know, a time in our history where a single parent household could support a family of 5 on one FACTORY income. American lives are not disposable to you just because you are bitter about salary based slave shackle keeping you in the office for 80 hours a week. If that lifestyle doesn't seem like a fucking pony on your birthday then go try and put some manual labor into your income and see how soon you run back to the goddamn desk. Devaluing labor just doesn't float with me. Especially, when the total cost is our American SOLs. We get 8 hours a day from our workers and pay them a wage that will maintain a supportive middle class. End of story. If this doesn't seem like enough effort to you.. well.. I guess it's easy to see why THIS nation eventually HAD TO ban child labor.

 

[Bern80]

You didn't bother reading the article, did you?

Gosh, Bern... there comes a point where you ahve to admit that your plane is, in fact, hurling out of the sky in a firey ball of fuel and metal. Being stubborn won't maintain altitude.


These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?

I disagree that altruism is what it would take. That sounds more like the assumption by capitalistas that greedy people WONT actually take advantage of their fellow man for the sake of a buck. Sound familiar?

Disagree all you want. That's what it would take and that's the reality of your position. Study human nature a little bit. If all I have to do to get by is wait for the nanny state to take care of me why the fuck would I want to be entrepreneural? Because I'm looking so forward to government telling me how I have to run my business? Ya didn't get any common sesne while you were away either it appears.

and, yes, it does sound realistic. Why? Because, AGAIN, we were once not busy trying to scam American with bullshit free market capitalism carrots dangled in the face of common sense and the product was THE GREAT GENERATION. You know, a time in our history where a single parent household could support a family of 5 on one FACTORY income. American lives are not disposable to you just because you are bitter about salary based slave shackle keeping you in the office for 80 hours a week. If that lifestyle doesn't seem like a fucking pony on your birthday then go try and put some manual labor into your income and see how soon you run back to the goddamn desk. Devaluing labor just doesn't float with me. Especially, when the total cost is our American SOLs. We get 8 hours a day from our workers and pay them a wage that will maintain a supportive middle class. End of story. If this doesn't seem like enough effort to you.. well.. I guess it's easy to see why THIS nation eventually HAD TO ban child labor.

I don't devalue labor at all. I value it based on the skill sets the labor force posseses and the scarcity of those skills. YOU base their value on who the fuck knows what. As far as I can tell it's what you think people deserve, which is obviously a lot and has nothing to do with the individual effort of the person. I know both sides friend. I have worked at a desk and on an assembly line. The simple fact is we value intelligence based skills over physical based skills because the former is scarcer than the later. I worked on our assembly line building motors for a month and half instead of at my normal job of being on the phone answering questions. the reason I get paid more than the assembly line worker is because while there is a level of physical difficulty to it, it takes all of 10 minutes to teach damn near anyone how to do that. It takes months to learn our entire product line backwards and forwards so that when the phone rings I can answer someones question correctly. If your motivation to improve yuorself doesn't extend beyond attachiong part a to part b, sorry, you're going to have a hard time mustering much sympathy out of me. The reality of your world is that, you would breed more and more people like that. You aren't doing society any favors by keeping it and the individuals that make it up from adapting and challenging themselves because people won't do what they don't have to do and they won't do them if there isn't a payoff. Your utopia where everyone gets babysat through life eliminates both of those which makes society weaker and weaker and only as good as the weakest person in it. Congratulations on creating the most underachieving mediocre society EVER. Aren't you proud?

In the simplest sense that is what our system does. It rewards effort. The difference between people like you, bobo and RodISHI is how we define effort. Effort is not just physical, it's mental and what you don't understand about the reality of your world is that we would be paying assembly line workers more than we pay our brain surgeons because one flexes their muscles more than the other. How much fucking sense does that make? We reward intellgence over muscle because one has proven to be far more valuable and far more scarce to society. Your perception that all the rich got that way because they're screwed people along the way and made people work for slave wages is just that, a fucked up perception. On that assembly line I don't have to decide how to allocate resources. there all there right in front of me. On that line I don't need don't need to make any really tough decisions, i dont have to make any decisions at all to be honest. I don't have to challenge myself for any answers to anything. I don't hold anyone's future in my hands over the decisions I make.

There is a distinction that you fail to make. yes I understand that our owner depends on us on that line to build products which ultimatley makes them money, but my owner does not depend on me at the individual level because on that line damn near anyone off the street can do what I do. At the individual level I am expendable on that line. On the other hand, how many people would have gained the knowledge and made the effort and taken the risk of starting building product out of a garage and 50 years later had be close to a billion dollar company that is able to provide good wages to thousands of people?

 

[Shogun]

Here, BERN... why don't you just take a gander at some video fun.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-nLS6FJtSM]YouTube - MAYOR VIRG BERNERO OF LANSING MICHIGAN TEARS INTO FOX ANCHOR - HILARIOUS!!![/ame]

 

[sealybobo]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson-

How come Kevin Kennedy continues to argue with me over symantics? He says Dr. Paul isn't for socializing the banks. Well that's true, but he certainly isn't for turning over the Federal Reserve to the free market. And so if the government takes back the treasury, isn't that nationalizing the Federal Reserve?

Right now it is a part private and part government agency. Dr. Paul is not for making the Federal Reserve 100% private, correct? No, he is for making it 100% government run.

Am I wrong, or is Kevin?

 

[sealybobo]

WHY is it American Businesses responsibility to provide jobs with a decent SOL? Two reasons: They benefit from the AMERICAN CONSUMER and they benefit from being in an AMERICAN LOCATION. Do you think many American wold headquarters are GOING to places where the cheap labor is? Fuck no. THEY stay right here in America where it's safe. Do you think products made in China are SOLD to China? Fuck no because America HAS BEEN, historically, the nation with a liesure class that has money to spend on shit. Thus, it's imparative that our Gov preserve this status OR, MUCH LIKE EVERYTHING THE FUCK ELSE, that status becomes EXPORTED. By normalizing OUR value of labor with that of a third world country, not only do capitalistas undermine American SOLs but, they risk losing our unique consumer status while totally ignoring stagnant consumption elsewhere. How many Japanese cars get advertised in Nigeria? How many MEXICANS are working their asses off in a NAfta factory that are able to spend any more than they could PRE-nafta? We STILL have a staggering loss when it comes to trade deficits, Bern. Your position would be stronger were it not the case that America is being forced to suck dick AND take it up the ass by globalist capitalistas.

To do the job warrented in order to be paid. What the hell do you think made our greatest society so damn great, Bern? It sure as hell wasn't industrial age robber barons or dust bowl depressions. It sure the hell wasn't outsourced labor or global capitalista wet dreams. Learn the Batista lesson, dude.

These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?

I could post article after article conveying what American general labor has been knowing for a while now. But, instead of boring you with examples why don't you take a gander at this article and see if it doesn't echo a few of my points.


The Dysfunctional Duo
The solution for East Asia, and China in particular, is to change its economic strategy. Instead of relying so heavily on exports, China will have to increase its domestic consumption. It will have to invest in upgrading its infrastructure and establish social insurance programs so that its citizens, instead of hoarding money, will be able to spend more. It will have to allow wage levels to rise, creating a more stable domestic market for its goods.

Devising a successful economic strategy for the United States is a good deal trickier. When our economic elites offshored much of our manufacturing sector to East Asia and other cheap-labor lands, and took arms against union labor here at home, they ensured that most of the American jobs created over the past quarter-century would come in retail and service sectors that paid less than manufacturing. Every year for the past couple of decades, we've added lots more sales-clerk, cashier and fast-food jobs than we've created in high technology or energy. Yet Americans have been able to maintain middle-class living standards -- not through rising income but through rising debt, available to us because China has funneled the immense revenue it amassed selling us goods back to us in the form of loans that we can no longer repay.

Harold Meyerson - China and the United States - the Dysfunctional Duo

I'm sure you could post many articles. that's generally what people who believe something do. they seek out only the material that supports their position and ignore the rest. You have to know that there is a tradeoff. If you become more protectionist you will have inflation, which means there is a trade of between jobs and people's buying power relative to the value of our currency.

Yes, so you don't do too much protectionism so as not to cause too much inflation so you maintain a good economy. We can deal with all the things you worry about. And it is amazing that you Republicans seem to know so much about economics but you can't even put it together in your minds that your own party is the party that brought down the economy with their huge tax breaks for themselves while doubling up on spending. Add to that the illegals they hired and jobs they sent overseas.

You don't have to preach to us what will hurt an economy. You showed us for 8 years. We're done listening to Idiotanomics 101.

So what we don't do is let things continue the way they are because the way things are now is affecting the middle class. And again, the middle class is the creation of Democracy or Democratic Government. In a free market without regulations, the middle class will disappear. It is disappearing now, thanks to the GOP.

Now lets see if the Dems will save it, or will they continue on serving corporations over us. I doubt it. If they do, they'll lose. Dems don't have the luxury of getting the benefit of the doubt like the GOP got the last 8 years. Because the GOP are better at terrorism/war? HA!

Did you see the guy on the Daily Show? He wrote the book about how Petraius, behind Bush's back, paid the Sunni's to stop killing us. It was a great interview. I need to get the book.

 

[Bern80]

WHY is it American Businesses responsibility to provide jobs with a decent SOL? Two reasons: They benefit from the AMERICAN CONSUMER and they benefit from being in an AMERICAN LOCATION. Do you think many American wold headquarters are GOING to places where the cheap labor is? Fuck no. THEY stay right here in America where it's safe. Do you think products made in China are SOLD to China? Fuck no because America HAS BEEN, historically, the nation with a liesure class that has money to spend on shit. Thus, it's imparative that our Gov preserve this status OR, MUCH LIKE EVERYTHING THE FUCK ELSE, that status becomes EXPORTED. By normalizing OUR value of labor with that of a third world country, not only do capitalistas undermine American SOLs but, they risk losing our unique consumer status while totally ignoring stagnant consumption elsewhere. How many Japanese cars get advertised in Nigeria? How many MEXICANS are working their asses off in a NAfta factory that are able to spend any more than they could PRE-nafta? We STILL have a staggering loss when it comes to trade deficits, Bern. Your position would be stronger were it not the case that America is being forced to suck dick AND take it up the ass by globalist capitalistas.

To do the job warrented in order to be paid. What the hell do you think made our greatest society so damn great, Bern? It sure as hell wasn't industrial age robber barons or dust bowl depressions. It sure the hell wasn't outsourced labor or global capitalista wet dreams. Learn the Batista lesson, dude.

These two paragraphs pose a bit of a conundrum for you. You admit that the responsibility of the individual in providing for their standard of living is realitvely minimal compared to the business. Unfortuntaely such a system depends on said society being composed of some really altruistic people. In a nut shell a person's level of responsibility in your make believe world is rather minimals, yet it depends on at least some individuals to be motivated enough to not only provide for himself but a lot of other people. that sound realistic to you?

I could post article after article conveying what American general labor has been knowing for a while now. But, instead of boring you with examples why don't you take a gander at this article and see if it doesn't echo a few of my points.


The Dysfunctional Duo
The solution for East Asia, and China in particular, is to change its economic strategy. Instead of relying so heavily on exports, China will have to increase its domestic consumption. It will have to invest in upgrading its infrastructure and establish social insurance programs so that its citizens, instead of hoarding money, will be able to spend more. It will have to allow wage levels to rise, creating a more stable domestic market for its goods.

Devising a successful economic strategy for the United States is a good deal trickier. When our economic elites offshored much of our manufacturing sector to East Asia and other cheap-labor lands, and took arms against union labor here at home, they ensured that most of the American jobs created over the past quarter-century would come in retail and service sectors that paid less than manufacturing. Every year for the past couple of decades, we've added lots more sales-clerk, cashier and fast-food jobs than we've created in high technology or energy. Yet Americans have been able to maintain middle-class living standards -- not through rising income but through rising debt, available to us because China has funneled the immense revenue it amassed selling us goods back to us in the form of loans that we can no longer repay.

Harold Meyerson - China and the United States - the Dysfunctional Duo

I'm sure you could post many articles. that's generally what people who believe something do. they seek out only the material that supports their position and ignore the rest. You have to know that there is a tradeoff. If you become more protectionist you will have inflation, which means there is a trade of between jobs and people's buying power relative to the value of our currency.

Yes, so you don't do too much protectionism so as not to cause too much inflation so you maintain a good economy. We can deal with all the things you worry about. And it is amazing that you Republicans seem to know so much about economics but you can't even put it together in your minds that your own party is the party that brought down the economy with their huge tax breaks for themselves while doubling up on spending. Add to that the illegals they hired and jobs they sent overseas.

You don't have to preach to us what will hurt an economy. You showed us for 8 years. We're done listening to Idiotanomics 101.

So what we don't do is let things continue the way they are because the way things are now is affecting the middle class. And again, the middle class is the creation of Democracy or Democratic Government. In a free market without regulations, the middle class will disappear. It is disappearing now, thanks to the GOP.

Now lets see if the Dems will save it, or will they continue on serving corporations over us. I doubt it. If they do, they'll lose. Dems don't have the luxury of getting the benefit of the doubt like the GOP got the last 8 years. Because the GOP are better at terrorism/war? HA!

Did you see the guy on the Daily Show? He wrote the book about how Petraius, behind Bush's back, paid the Sunni's to stop killing us. It was a great interview. I need to get the book.

Until you accept the cupibablity of everyone in this mess, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS like Carter and Frank there is little point conversing with you. I agree whole heartedly that if Bush wanted to cut taxes he shoulda reigned in spending. The problem with your Bush bashing and basically saying the last 8 years got it wrong which somehow inherently means Obama will get it right, is Obama is doing exactly the same thing, just tilting the scales a little more, less in favor of tax cuts and shit load of spending which last time I checked has never turned an economy around.

 

[Bern80]

Here, BERN... why don't you just take a gander at some video fun.


YouTube - MAYOR VIRG BERNERO OF LANSING MICHIGAN TEARS INTO FOX ANCHOR - HILARIOUS!!!

You'll have to forgive me if I don't think an assembly line worker making $70/hr in wages and benefits is underpaid. Perhaps you'd like to actually respond to my previous post now.

 

[editec]

You don't have to preach to us what will hurt an economy. You showed us for 8 years. We're done listening to Idiotanomics 101.

OUCH!

Truth comes in blows, doesn't it?