Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,656
Reaction score
10,866
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
That is simply not true. I can't argue against factually false claims. And even if it was true, you do know that between China and the Soviets, an estimated 120 Million people were killed. So yeah, pretty much every socialist left-wing country has attempted, and failed to achieve exceptionalism through murder and violence.
How many hundreds of millions of native Americans did capitalism kill over the past four hundred years? How many Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese died between 1945 and 1973 from US capitalist-sponsored wars of aggression? How many more in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria since the "End of History?" The US Empire is among the bloodiest in history, and its carnage is ongoing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/b9ozbh
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

Attachments

OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
That's part of the problem though. If you pick a major that has no value, the result is society is poorer, and the person getting the education is poorer.

I know lady that didn't college. She worked at a bank, as a teller. After several years, she got promoted, joined the banks in-house training program. Today she makes 6-figures.

Her sister, went to a university, and got a Ph.D in the humanities. She got out, and is paid $30,000 a year.
What makes you believe a banker contributes more value to society than an educator?

"In a recent article from The Washington Post tiled, 'Please, Students, Take That ‘Impractical’ Humanities Class. We Will All Benefit,' Ronald J. Daniels, the president of Duke University, makes a case for taking 'impractical' humanities classes. For one, those 'impractical' courses have practical benefits in the job market."

On the Benefits of Taking “Impractical” Courses
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Interesting theory. So in your world, if you nationalize a debt burden, then it ceases to exist?
How are you defining "nationalize a debt burden"?

Who owes all that student debt? And who’d benefit if it were forgiven?

"Student debt is a big issue in the 2020 presidential campaign for an obvious reason: There’s a lot of it—about $1.5 trillion, up from $250 billion in 2004.

"Students loans are now the second largest slice of household debt after mortgages, bigger than credit card debt.

"About 42 million Americans (about one in every eight) have student loans, so this is a potent issue among voters, particularly younger ones."
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,656
Reaction score
10,866
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Interesting theory. So in your world, if you nationalize a debt burden, then it ceases to exist?

Why didn't that work in 2008? So you are in favor of socializing the debt of banks? Because in your world the debt just magically vanishes?
That theory seems to be testing well on Wall Street.
Why not use it for the 99%?

Forgiving student debt doesn’t actually solve the root of the problem


Wiping the Slate Clean: Quantitative Easing, “Cancelling” Student Debt, and the Latent Power of the Fed

"October 26, 2016

"ALIGNING FINANCE WITH PEOPLE AND PLANET

"The monetary policy known as 'quantitative easing' has been grabbing headlines recently.

"For months it has been at the center of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s platform, where it’s cited as a way to 'cancel student debt' and 'bail out' a debt-shackled generation of former students who are suffering due to the excesses of Wall Street."
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,656
Reaction score
10,866
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Interesting theory. So in your world, if you nationalize a debt burden, then it ceases to exist?

Why didn't that work in 2008? So you are in favor of socializing the debt of banks? Because in your world the debt just magically vanishes?
That theory seems to be testing well on Wall Street.
Why not use it for the 99%?

Forgiving student debt doesn’t actually solve the root of the problem


Wiping the Slate Clean: Quantitative Easing, “Cancelling” Student Debt, and the Latent Power of the Fed

"October 26, 2016

"ALIGNING FINANCE WITH PEOPLE AND PLANET

"The monetary policy known as 'quantitative easing' has been grabbing headlines recently.

"For months it has been at the center of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s platform, where it’s cited as a way to 'cancel student debt' and 'bail out' a debt-shackled generation of former students who are suffering due to the excesses of Wall Street."
"For months it has been at the center of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s platform, where it’s cited as a way to 'cancel student debt' and 'bail out' a debt-shackled generation of former students who are suffering due to the excesses of Wall Street."

Wall Street didn't make these loans.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Left-wingers contradict themselves constantly. You have posted a dozen times about how taking on the debt burden of banks that crashed in 2008 is bad, but then spin right around talk about how taking on the debt burden of students, will just magically disappear into the supernatural ether of left-wing ideology.
Bailing out speculators impedes the productive economy; it accomplishes nothing except blow the inevitable capitalist bubbles ever larger. Students whose loans are forgiven spend their money in ways that boost GDP rather than fatten the bottom lines of Wall Street parasites.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Only Capitalism, which is right-wing, believes in freedom. The people are free, to use for whatever purpose they wish, their own property.
Milton was wrong.
Capitalism doesn't produce freedom.
Capitalism produces autocratic workplaces and billionaire tyrants.
Depending on how you view "positive" vs "negative" freedoms, capitalism does not provide individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods and it fosters a huge buildup of private power by concentrating wealth and entrenching corporate control over markets(not to mention destroying the environment and the freedom of future generations)
Ridiculous. By DEFINITION.... capitalist is about freedom. By definition, your property, is your property.

By definition, you have to have ownership of your own property, and that in and of itself.... is freedom.

You say capitalism doesn't produce freedom, because of autocratic work places?

But wait... you could make your own work place, right? And contrary to the word "autocratic".... I don't have to work there.

Again, I have the freedom to do with my labor, that I under Capitalism own.... whatever I want.

I had a boss years ago who was a jerk. I walked up to him "I finished what you asked, and now I'm going home. I quit".

What did that "autocratic" do? Nothing. Because there was nothing he could do. Because I am a Capitalist, and I own my own labor, and if I don't want to sell him my labor, there is nothing he can do to stop me.

You know what happened in Socialist China if you deserted your rice field? The police came, put a gun to your head, and escorted you back to your rice patty. In Soviet Russia, the military would come and beat you until you did your work.

Here, you have freedom.

If you don't want to work for someone else, you don't have to. The lady across the street from me, babysat kids, made over $1,000 a week, heating up Mac&Cheese, and hitting play on Netflix.

No "autocratic" showed up and dragged her off to a job site.

"individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods"

Sure it does. Your fair share... is how much you agree to work for.

If someone hires you to do a job for $30,000, and you agree to it... that's your fair share.
If someone hires you to do a job for $100,000, and you agree to it.... that's your fair share.
If they hire you for $200,000, or $500K, or $1.8 Million...

Whatever someone is willing to pay you, and you agree to it, that *IS* "your fair share."

If you think your labor is worth more, then prove it. Find someone who is willing to pay you more, and work for them.

If no one anywhere is willing to pay you more for what you can do.... than how much you were making, is your fair share. Because your labor isn't worth more. If it was, someone would pay you more.
Capitalist Freedom Is a Farce

"When GM and Ford decided to desert cities like Detroit and Flint for poorer towns and countries, they denied their former workforce any positive freedom to enjoy the industry’s enormous revenues — revenues the workers themselves had created.

"When Martin Shkreli’s pharmaceutical company hiked the price of a life-saving patented drug from $13.50 to $750, effectively snatching it away from disease sufferers, it drove dependent users into poverty or bankruptcy — a frightening restriction of negative freedom.

"When Amazon held a sweepstakes to see which North American city would be blessed with its new headquarters, and mayors across the continent threw billions in tax concessions at the company’s feet, Amazon wielded enormous power over the destiny of millions of people — laying bare how capitalist investment decisions can dramatically limit human liberty."
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Goldman sachs provided the bond investments that Greece requested.

If Goldman Sachs had not done this, the Greek government would have imploded years before they did.
If Goldman Sachs hadn't used a fictitious market exchange rate to distort Greek economic problems, the country would never have been eligible to join the EU.

Would Greeks be better off today if they had maintained a sovereign currency?


How Goldman Sachs Profited From the Greek Debt Crisis.

"In 2001, Greece was looking for ways to disguise its mounting financial troubles.

"The Maastricht Treaty required all eurozone member states to show improvement in their public finances, but Greece was heading in the wrong direction.

"Then Goldman Sachs came to the rescue, arranging a secret loan of 2.8 billion euros for Greece, disguised as an off-the-books 'cross-currency swap'—a complicated transaction in which Greece’s foreign-currency debt was converted into a domestic-currency obligation using a fictitious market exchange rate."
This is yet another stupid argument. This is like "If we just ban guns, everyone will become law abiding citizen.".

Let's pretend Goldman Sachs didn't exist. Do you think Greece would not have simply found someone else to make the currency swaps?

If you don't, then you are an idiot.

The socialists in the Greek government fudged the numbers on everything. The socialists Greek government, had been over spending EVERYWHERE. Just like Democrats want to do today. Remember Elizabeth Warren when she was asked how she would pay for everything she wanted, she simply said "Well there's always more money."

It's always amazing to hear people on the left complain about Trumps budget deficits, and then spin right around, and say we need Medicare for all, free college, and more social housing. You even just posted that you wanted government run banks, which have failed routinely in US history.


Greek spending was so out of control, and their public sector so large, that at one point, and I don't know if it is true even now, but the amount of money the Greek government was spending on Mass transit with their massive railway network subsidized so badly, that they could actually save money, by simply paying for every single train passenger, to have their own individual taxis, and get them where they needed to go.

That's how much Greece was fiddling the books.

And it doesn't end there. Nearly every agency of the Greek government was fiddling the books.

Now regardless of what you think, the Socialist Greek "social spending" government, was concealing debt, fiddling with the numbers, and cooking the books, throughout the entire government. That's fact. Not debatable.

If you think, that if only Goldman Sachs had not been around, that they would have..... what? What do you really think they would have done? Admitted to the world, they were lying about absolutely everything, before they tried to joined the Eurozone?

Seriously? You think that would have happened? They would have said "Oh yeah, we really can't afford all these social programs, and we've been lying about everything!"

You think socialist government was going to come clean or something?

Of course not.

Even if..... *IF* they had never joined the Eurozone, never had currency swaps, never changed from the Drachma to the Euro.........

They still would have bankrupted themselves. No question about it.

Maybe you missed it sparky, but they were fudging the numbers, and hiding debt, and borrowing themselves in oblivion BEFORE they ever joined the Eurozone.

THAT IS THE WHOLE REASON THEY HIRED GOLDMAN SACHS TO BEGIN WITH.... is because they were ALREADY fudging the books, blowing out the spending, and borrowing themselves into bankruptcy.

Would Greeks be better off today if they had maintained a sovereign currency?

Answer: NO! They would not. Only a fool would even think otherwise.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Left-wingers contradict themselves constantly. You have posted a dozen times about how taking on the debt burden of banks that crashed in 2008 is bad, but then spin right around talk about how taking on the debt burden of students, will just magically disappear into the supernatural ether of left-wing ideology.
Bailing out speculators impedes the productive economy; it accomplishes nothing except blow the inevitable capitalist bubbles ever larger. Students whose loans are forgiven spend their money in ways that boost GDP rather than fatten the bottom lines of Wall Street parasites.
Bailing out ANYONE... is an impediment to a productive economy.

I'm against ANY bailouts to ANYONE.

Bailing out students, will result in bad students. If you are so dumb, that you take out a million dollar loan, to get a degree that pays you $30,000 a year......

Bailing you out will damage the entire economy. Because now other dumb students will also make million dollar decisions that result in $30,000 jobs.

That harms the entire country. The whole country now has to pay for the stupidity of foolish decisions.

It's called "enabling". Its when you enable bad behavior, results in more bad behavior.

It's just like if you have a broke brother-in-law who is an alcoholic, and he drinks away his mortgage payment.

Do you just pay his mortgage payment for him? No. Because if you do that, then he'll be even more likely to drink next month, because he knows there is a brainless fool who will cover his irresponsible behavior.

Worst possible thing we could do, is bailout student debt. Best thing we can do, is eliminate student loans.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Only Capitalism, which is right-wing, believes in freedom. The people are free, to use for whatever purpose they wish, their own property.
Milton was wrong.
Capitalism doesn't produce freedom.
Capitalism produces autocratic workplaces and billionaire tyrants.
Depending on how you view "positive" vs "negative" freedoms, capitalism does not provide individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods and it fosters a huge buildup of private power by concentrating wealth and entrenching corporate control over markets(not to mention destroying the environment and the freedom of future generations)
Ridiculous. By DEFINITION.... capitalist is about freedom. By definition, your property, is your property.

By definition, you have to have ownership of your own property, and that in and of itself.... is freedom.

You say capitalism doesn't produce freedom, because of autocratic work places?

But wait... you could make your own work place, right? And contrary to the word "autocratic".... I don't have to work there.

Again, I have the freedom to do with my labor, that I under Capitalism own.... whatever I want.

I had a boss years ago who was a jerk. I walked up to him "I finished what you asked, and now I'm going home. I quit".

What did that "autocratic" do? Nothing. Because there was nothing he could do. Because I am a Capitalist, and I own my own labor, and if I don't want to sell him my labor, there is nothing he can do to stop me.

You know what happened in Socialist China if you deserted your rice field? The police came, put a gun to your head, and escorted you back to your rice patty. In Soviet Russia, the military would come and beat you until you did your work.

Here, you have freedom.

If you don't want to work for someone else, you don't have to. The lady across the street from me, babysat kids, made over $1,000 a week, heating up Mac&Cheese, and hitting play on Netflix.

No "autocratic" showed up and dragged her off to a job site.

"individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods"

Sure it does. Your fair share... is how much you agree to work for.

If someone hires you to do a job for $30,000, and you agree to it... that's your fair share.
If someone hires you to do a job for $100,000, and you agree to it.... that's your fair share.
If they hire you for $200,000, or $500K, or $1.8 Million...

Whatever someone is willing to pay you, and you agree to it, that *IS* "your fair share."

If you think your labor is worth more, then prove it. Find someone who is willing to pay you more, and work for them.

If no one anywhere is willing to pay you more for what you can do.... than how much you were making, is your fair share. Because your labor isn't worth more. If it was, someone would pay you more.
Capitalist Freedom Is a Farce

"When GM and Ford decided to desert cities like Detroit and Flint for poorer towns and countries, they denied their former workforce any positive freedom to enjoy the industry’s enormous revenues — revenues the workers themselves had created.

"When Martin Shkreli’s pharmaceutical company hiked the price of a life-saving patented drug from $13.50 to $750, effectively snatching it away from disease sufferers, it drove dependent users into poverty or bankruptcy — a frightening restriction of negative freedom.

"When Amazon held a sweepstakes to see which North American city would be blessed with its new headquarters, and mayors across the continent threw billions in tax concessions at the company’s feet, Amazon wielded enormous power over the destiny of millions of people — laying bare how capitalist investment decisions can dramatically limit human liberty."
When GM and Ford decided to desert cities like Detroit and Flint for poorer towns and countries, they denied their former workforce any positive freedom to enjoy the industry’s enormous revenues — revenues the workers themselves had created.

What?

The freedom to enjoy the industries enormous revenue?

Do I have the freedom to enjoy your enormous wealth?

Since when does "freedom" involve enjoying other people's wealth?

Any argument based on the idea that somehow you have a right, to what others have earned.... is failed argument.

Because by your own argument, you are denying me the freedom to enjoy the wealth you have, and I promise you, you are more wealthy than me.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I thought profit was evil? No one should make money from the means of production, eh comrade?

"They produce nothing.

"They make nothing.

Fictitious capital - Wikipedia.

"Fictitious capital could be defined as a capitalisation on property ownership. Such ownership is real and legally enforced, as are the profits made from it, but the capital involved is fictitious; it is 'money that is thrown into circulation as capital without any material basis in commodities or productive activity'"
Fictitious claims:

Statements made about things one does not understand, and can't be proven, but are given credibility by gullible people, with a ideological world view.

Example:

"Fictitious capital could be defined as a capitalisation on property ownership. Such ownership is real and legally enforced, as are the profits made from it, but the capital involved is fictitious; it is 'money that is thrown into circulation as capital without any material basis in commodities or productive activity'"
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
This is one of the oddest aspects of left-wing ideology. You demand to borrow and spend money.... then you do so.... and then when your system crashes, you blame the people who allowed you to borrow and spend money.
Leftists understand when most international loans are made the money goes to corrupt elites who then hide the funds in off-shore tax havens while the majority of citizens of the country receiving the loans are expected to pay back the debts or privatize their public infrastructure.

We let finance rip and flogged our assets. Austerity was bound to follow | Will Hutton
Yeah, the problem is those "corrupt elites" are all leftists.

Besides that, privatization usually has the opposite effect of what you claim. When you socialize, or nationalize something, that's when you have destitution, want, poverty, hardship and so on.

Ironically, many of these same industries were privatized years earlier because consumers were fed up with state-run operations notorious for poor communication services, rolling power blackouts, outdated sewage systems and inadequate road networks. Politicians were happy to push for privatization because public pressure had forced them to provide these low-quality services at well below cost — a big drain on tight state budgets.​
After privatization, service quality generally increased but private companies began, not surprisingly, to charge higher prices for their services. During the 1990s, as many countries went through financial crises, public outcry over high prices increased, fueling a major backlash against foreign firms.​

In late 2007, Hugo Chavez nationalized many things, including specifically, the power grid, and one of the biggest electricity providers, which was a US based firm.


President Hugo Chávez has been facing a public outcry in recent weeks over power failures that, after six nationwide blackouts in the last two years, are cutting electricity for hours each day in rural areas and in industrial cities like Valencia and Ciudad Guayana. Now, water rationing has been introduced here in the capital.​
The deterioration of services is perplexing to many here, especially because the country had grown used to cheap, plentiful electricity and water in recent decades. But even as the oil boom was enriching his government and Mr. Chávez asserted greater control over utilities and other industries in this decade, public services seemed only to decay, adding to residents’ frustrations.​

The first nation wide power outage, happened BEFORE any US sanctions, before the price of oil fell.

Just a year or more, from when he nationalized the electrical grid.

Facts trump opinion. You complain about the rich wealthy elite, saying leftists know better.... but it's the leftists that are the wealthy elite the live in luxury while the poor die.

There has never been an example anywhere, where giving control to socialists result in long term improvements. Short term.... yes. Electricity was cheaper, when Hugo Chavez nationalized the power companies.

Long term? Nation wide black outs? That have been going on ROUTINELY for now over 10 years.

Yeah, not so great. Never is. You always run out of other people's money, and you always end up impoverished and starving. There's a reason well over 2 million Venezuelans have left the country, and why so many have come to the evil capitalist America. Socialism sucks. That's why.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
You can't force people to pay high taxes. They simply won't. Why do you think Hugo Chavez had to confiscate farms, and stores, and company factories?

You can't get people to give you all their hard earned money. You can't. They won't do it.
You continue to labor under the delusion people are morally entitled to their pre-tax income; they aren't. Rich people in particular would have much smaller fortunes if they didn't depend on government for courts, naval forces, roads, and public education.

"Free" markets do not automatically distribute income in a just manner, and all you need for living proof of that fact is to look critically at the parasite currently living in the White House.

Finally, if you provide the right incentive (your money or your freedom) rich people will pay their fair share of taxes, or they will find out how Rich Jeff felt just before his well-deserved demise.:)
You continue to labor under the delusion people are morally entitled to their pre-tax income; they aren't.

No, that's not a delusion. That's a fact. You admitted yourself, that you use every deduction you can, to reduce your taxes, from how much you owe at your given tax rate. Why did you do that? Because you believed you had a right to keep as much as you could, because you earned it.

If you did not actually believe you had any right to your earnings at all, you should have not taken any deductions, because that means you are taking money that isn't yours.

Second, not sure who that is.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
That is simply not true. I can't argue against factually false claims. And even if it was true, you do know that between China and the Soviets, an estimated 120 Million people were killed. So yeah, pretty much every socialist left-wing country has attempted, and failed to achieve exceptionalism through murder and violence.
How many hundreds of millions of native Americans did capitalism kill over the past four hundred years? How many Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese died between 1945 and 1973 from US capitalist-sponsored wars of aggression? How many more in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria since the "End of History?" The US Empire is among the bloodiest in history, and its carnage is ongoing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/b9ozbh
First off, the very first entry is a lie.
If the very first statement is a lie, I wager most of the rest are lies as well.

Second, you can't blame non-capitalist actions on capitalism.

That's like blaming obesity rates on lettuce farmers, because many burgers have lettuce on them.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Go read the Gulag Archipelago, to actually have any amount knowledge about the difference between the US and left-wing nations. Not even remotely comparable.
Read your own historical record on human rights before criticizing foreign tyrants.

The US role in the rise of Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile
I have. I know all about that.

Still not comparable. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

You comparing the horrific mass slaughter of hundreds of millions of people, to one single CIA plot to kidnap one guy, that ended up killing him (which is still terrible, and should not have been done), is like comparing the starving to death kids of Venezuela and the obese toddlers in the US, and saying we are the ones that have child hunger problems.

It's ridiculous.

Moreover, I find this ironic. You are acting like the CIA is a private capitalist company.

I want the government to have less control over the public. Less massive government agencies dictating every aspect of my life.

You want more of agencies like that, controlling every aspect of American citizens lives.

So which one of us, should really be learning something about the history of government? Hmmm?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
That's part of the problem though. If you pick a major that has no value, the result is society is poorer, and the person getting the education is poorer.

I know lady that didn't college. She worked at a bank, as a teller. After several years, she got promoted, joined the banks in-house training program. Today she makes 6-figures.

Her sister, went to a university, and got a Ph.D in the humanities. She got out, and is paid $30,000 a year.
What makes you believe a banker contributes more value to society than an educator?

"In a recent article from The Washington Post tiled, 'Please, Students, Take That ‘Impractical’ Humanities Class. We Will All Benefit,' Ronald J. Daniels, the president of Duke University, makes a case for taking 'impractical' humanities classes. For one, those 'impractical' courses have practical benefits in the job market."

On the Benefits of Taking “Impractical” Courses
What makes you believe a banker contributes more value to society than an educator?

Let's see..... just about everything everywhere that exists, makes me believe that a banker contributes more value to society than an educator.

Just looking around right now, I have computers, monitors, food, plates, drinks, allergy medicine, smart phone, sound system, printer, chair, desk, lights, electricity, internet, shoes that came by UPS, a car, oven, refrigerator, on and on and on.

Name something on that list that WAS NOT, financed or funded, had investors, or used banking services in its production?

Everything was. Everything. Absolutely everything. EVERY SINGLE THING.... was created while using funding, loans, and banking services. *EVERYTHING*.


Name anything on that list, you got from an educator at a school.

Nothing. Not one single thing. Not even one.


‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’

Now there is obviously value to teaching. There is.

But to compare the value created by any one given teacher, to the wealth created by investors, bankers, businessmen, and companies.... is ridiculous.

Remember, the reason you and me are talking right now, is because someone dropped out of college. He dropped out, lost all of that valuable education by educators.... and instead changed the world with what is the ubiquitous personal computer.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,682
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Interesting theory. So in your world, if you nationalize a debt burden, then it ceases to exist?
How are you defining "nationalize a debt burden"?

Who owes all that student debt? And who’d benefit if it were forgiven?

"Student debt is a big issue in the 2020 presidential campaign for an obvious reason: There’s a lot of it—about $1.5 trillion, up from $250 billion in 2004.

"Students loans are now the second largest slice of household debt after mortgages, bigger than credit card debt.

"About 42 million Americans (about one in every eight) have student loans, so this is a potent issue among voters, particularly younger ones."
How you define nationalize a debt burden, is the same way everyone defines it.

If you take a debt... like a Mortgage Backed Security that is losing money.... or a student loan from a student who doesn't want to pay it.... and make it a burden of the tax payers.

That is nationalizing a debt burden.

You guys can't even fund the US Post Office with a monopoly codified by law, without losing money. We already have $29 Trillion in national debt. But you want to add another $1.5 Trillion?

This is exactly the type of stupid thinking that resulted in Greece imploding.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top