Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
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."
The Fed doesn't wipe the slate clean. They are swapping assets for credits. A bank gives a $1 Million in assets, in exchange for $1 Million in credits at the Fed account.

What are you going to swap for debt?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
"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."
The only people who believe capitalism distributes wealth fairly are slaves, imbeciles, or those who "own" the means of production; workers are "free" to choose an employer who will exploit their surplus labor or starve.

Capitalist Freedom Is a Farce

"Capitalism’s defenders insist that, as Friedman and his wife Rose wrote in their book Free To Choose, 'When you enter a store, no one forces you to buy. You are free to do so or go elsewhere. . . . You are free to choose.'

"They applied the same argument to workers: if you don’t like your job or career, find another one.

"But other figures have seen the market’s alleged negative freedom quite differently. Consider Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave and self-taught intellectual. He concluded:

"Experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other. . . . The man who has it in his power to say to a man, you must work the land for me for such wages as I choose to give, has a power of slavery over him as real, if not as complete, as he who compels toil under the lash. All that a man hath he will give for his life.'"
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The logical fallacy you just committed is equivocation. I was referring to monopoly of guns in government force. You changed that to refer to private ownership. No one is using guns to prevent government from confiscation and redistribution.

Markets are creations of government.
They distribute income and wealth according to rules enacted and enforced by a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
You have no legal or moral right to your pre-tax income since without government there would be no functioning markets.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,995
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
The logical fallacy you just committed is equivocation. I was referring to monopoly of guns in government force. You changed that to refer to private ownership. No one is using guns to prevent government from confiscation and redistribution.

Markets are creations of government.
They distribute income and wealth according to rules enacted and enforced by a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
You have no legal or moral right to your pre-tax income since without government there would be no functioning markets.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Markets are driven by productivity. Which is the same thing that drives economies. You should know where your food is coming from since you're a leach.

The one thing history has proved is that after you gut the product of capitalism, you have no answers as the people descend into poverty and starvation.

Margret Thatcher: The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

Communists are people who don't grasp that you need to keep capitalism alive to keep feeding on it. China learned that. None of the rest of you have
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
More Marxist rhetoric. What are you talking about that "taxpayers" are subsidizing this? That doesn't even make sense
Amazon pays its workers less than a living wage.

Which means "taxpayers" have to cover the difference with food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance. If Greedy Jeff paid his workers the full value of what they produce every day, such governmental redistribution would not be necessary.

Living wage - Wikipedia
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,474
Reaction score
10,706
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
More Marxist rhetoric. What are you talking about that "taxpayers" are subsidizing this? That doesn't even make sense
Amazon pays its workers less than a living wage.

Which means "taxpayers" have to cover the difference with food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance. If Greedy Jeff paid his workers the full value of what they produce every day, such governmental redistribution would not be necessary.

Living wage - Wikipedia
Which means "taxpayers" have to cover the difference with food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance.

Would the taxpayer cover more, or less, if Jeff fired them?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Thanks for the link that didn't mention the Fed buying any stocks.
Try this one.

Central Banks Buying Stocks Have Rigged US Stock Market Beyond Recovery

"Central banks buying stocks are effectively nationalizing US corporations just to maintain the illusion that their 'recovery' plan is working because they have become the banks that are too big to fail.

"At first, their novel entry into the stock market was only intended to rescue imperiled corporations, such as General Motors during the first plunge into the Great Recession, but recently their efforts have shifted to propping up the entire stock market via major purchases of the most healthy companies on the market."
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,474
Reaction score
10,706
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Thanks for the link that didn't mention the Fed buying any stocks.
Try this one.

Central Banks Buying Stocks Have Rigged US Stock Market Beyond Recovery

"Central banks buying stocks are effectively nationalizing US corporations just to maintain the illusion that their 'recovery' plan is working because they have become the banks that are too big to fail.

"At first, their novel entry into the stock market was only intended to rescue imperiled corporations, such as General Motors during the first plunge into the Great Recession, but recently their efforts have shifted to propping up the entire stock market via major purchases of the most healthy companies on the market."
Thanks for the link that didn't mention the Fed buying any stocks.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,995
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Sorry, minimum wage guys like you don't get a parachute.

You should have bought some stock.

Living wage - Wikipedia
I already explained this to you. Why don't you address my points?

I'm paying them more than anyone else. They chose to work for me. NO ONE WAS WILLING TO PAY THEM MORE THAN ME.

Why would I ask them to submit a budget and just keep paying them more than that? Rather than paying them more than anyone else, I'm supposed to ask what they need to live? That's stupid. If the job was worth more than I am paying them, then I would hire someone worth more to do it.

Why is it my problem they aren't working hard and they didn't get an education or more skills? Why is it not on THEM to be worth more? Why is their family my problem, not theirs?

And again, I had two people who worked for me on public assistance when I sold my graphic design business. They had not coincidentally the two easiest, low value jobs in the company. Should I have fired them? I would NOT have paid them enough to not take public assistance. They were not worth what it would have cost. And again, why is that my problem instead of theirs? I didn't adopt them, I hired them.

Marxism is a retarded system and no one is willing to do it, including Marxists. Which is why it always fails
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,995
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
More Marxist rhetoric. What are you talking about that "taxpayers" are subsidizing this? That doesn't even make sense
Amazon pays its workers less than a living wage.

Which means "taxpayers" have to cover the difference with food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance. If Greedy Jeff paid his workers the full value of what they produce every day, such governmental redistribution would not be necessary.

Living wage - Wikipedia
Which means "taxpayers" have to cover the difference with food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance.

Would the taxpayer cover more, or less, if Jeff fired them?
Yep. The two people who worked for me on public assistance got their best offer from me. No one would pay them more. So they aren't just going to get a better job.

Georgephillip is advocating they be unemployable because no one will pay them enough to live without public assistance.

And as I pointed out, why is it even MY responsibility to pay them more than they are worth? Why isn't it their responsibility to be worth more? Why is their family MY responsibility not theirs?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
"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."
The only people who believe capitalism distributes wealth fairly are slaves, imbeciles, or those who "own" the means of production; workers are "free" to choose an employer who will exploit their surplus labor or starve.

Capitalist Freedom Is a Farce

"Capitalism’s defenders insist that, as Friedman and his wife Rose wrote in their book Free To Choose, 'When you enter a store, no one forces you to buy. You are free to do so or go elsewhere. . . . You are free to choose.'

"They applied the same argument to workers: if you don’t like your job or career, find another one.

"But other figures have seen the market’s alleged negative freedom quite differently. Consider Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave and self-taught intellectual. He concluded:

"Experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other. . . . The man who has it in his power to say to a man, you must work the land for me for such wages as I choose to give, has a power of slavery over him as real, if not as complete, as he who compels toil under the lash. All that a man hath he will give for his life.'"
Again, capitalism does not "distribute" anything.

There is no magical "free market fairy" that goes around distributing wealth.

Wealth is not distributed in capitalism.

Wealth is created and destroyed, and those who produce more, have more. Those who invest and save more, have more.

There is no fairy that come around and distributes tomatoes. If I dig a whole, put in tomato seeds, put some soil in it, fertilize it, water it.....

I will end up with tomatoes. Capitalism didn't "distribute" that wealth to me. My actions at producing, resulted in a production.

I have a friend, who built a rather expensive distillery, and makes wine. He bottles it and sells it.

There was no capitalism fairy that came and 'distributed' wealth to him. He made a pretty good tasting low-alcohol wine from (if I remember right) strawberries, and people liked it, and they buy bottles of the stuff off him.

That's how life works. You produce something of value for your fellow human beings, and the result is you become wealthy. I should also mention, provided you don't blow the money, and spend it all on crap.

Anyone can do this.


Still no magical fairy that 'distribute' wealth to a janitor. He saved, and invested his earnings his whole life, and now he has $8 Million dollars in his retirement.

No fairy 'distributed' it to him.

By the way, I'm the same way. Other than last year, where I earned a whooping $30,000+.... the prior 10 years, I have averaged about $22,000 a year, or less.

Yet, I have tens of thousands in wealth. I own stocks, and I own property.

How did that happen? I lived on less than I made each year, and purchased stocks and paid off debt. I own my house free and clear, and I have thousands in the bank, and have tens of thousands in stock.

It wasn't magic. It was a choice. I bought investments. I didn't borrow money. I have no credit cards, no debts, no car loan, no student loan.

No one came by and said "Maybe it's 'fair' to distribute wealth to you!".

No it was a choice. Just like how you posted that pie chart of Swedes owning more of the wealth, is because 76% of Swedes make a choice to buy more investments.

It's not because the free-market Capitalist fairies in Sweden are more fair, and the free-market capitalist fairies of the US, are less fair.

It's because Swedes choose to live on less than they make, and plow their savings into buying stocks and bonds in the capitalist investment market.

I told you before when you are whining about the rich having most of the wealth.... if ever single person in this country who worked a full 40-hours a week, were to simply take $100..... just $100... most people spend more on their phone bill a month, let alone drinking and cable TV and a host of other nonsense.....

If every 40-hour a week worker, invested just $100 a month into a good growth stock mutual fund, that entire pie chart would change in 1 years, and by 10 years, it would look more like Swedens.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,474
Reaction score
10,706
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Purdue doesn't own Narcan.
Naloxone has been available as a generic for decades.
Your "argument" weak as it was.......

“Purdue executives discussed how its sales force could promote Narcan,” a drug used to treat overdoses, “to the same doctors who prescribed the most opioids.”

Barge in, cause problem, sell solution. Money in the bank.


They don't own the solution.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top