Misery Loves Company

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not exactly. It is your militant atheism which opens the door for them.

I am militantly anti-statist. Let’s get that straight.

Organized religion and statist dogma are the same. Both are setup o control the thoughts, ehavior, and money of individuals under their influence, and both generally seek to increasethe number of those under their influence.

So, who is closer to being a goose-stepping pinko? The transition would be fluid. Your religion would transform to the worship of the state.

 

[ding]

Not exactly. It is your militant atheism which opens the door for them.

I am militantly anti-statist. Let’s get that straight.

Organized religion and statist dogma are the same. Both are setup o control the thoughts, ehavior, and money of individuals under their influence, and both generally seek to increasethe number of those under their influence.

So, who is closer to being a goose-stepping pinko? The transition would be fluid. Your religion would transform to the worship of the state.

You are 100%. First of all you just admitted to being a militant atheist even though you didn't recognize that you did. Let's follow your logic... You believe that organized religion and statist dogma are the same and you admit to being a militant anti-statist. Ergo you are a militant atheist. Your behaviors confirm your own words.

But putting that aside, if you are anti-statist you are anti-government which makes you an anarchist and amoral. Ayn Rand explains...

"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement."

If you need for me to explain why anarchism is a logical outgrowth of collectivism, let me know.

Suffice it to say, this coupled with you condemning respect for people who believe in God makes you at a minimum a dupe of the far left. As your anti-religion and anti-government propaganda plays into their hands.

 

[ding]

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

Why? Why can't they just take a vote and pass a law? Are you suggesting every single thing they do requires the approval of the people?

 

[ding]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

Why? Why can't they just take a vote and pass a law? Are you suggesting every single thing they do requires the approval of the people?

About "requires the approval of the people", it is basically the same as Medicare for All. I would argue that as Obamacare fails; that is the next choice. You could adopt the British, Canadian, or some other plan, but the only thing that can be passed is something the people generally understand. That means Medicare for All is next!



The same is true with changes in how we meet the basic needs of the citizen of a country! The people would have to understand "Mincome."

 

[ding]

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

Why? Why can't they just take a vote and pass a law? Are you suggesting every single thing they do requires the approval of the people?

About "requires the approval of the people", it is basically the same as Medicare for All. I would argue that as Obamacare fails; that is the next choice. You could adopt the British, Canadian, or some other plan, but the only thing that can be passed is something the people generally understand. That means Medicare for All is next!



The same is true with changes in how we meet the basic needs of the citizen of a country! The people would have to understand "Mincome."

How about we eliminate prepaying for all medical needs and let medical prices return to where the market says they should be instead. Insurance is a scam and adds costs that are unnecessary and artificially raises the prices for all procedures.

But putting that aside, my point still stands, Mincome was not a success, if it were it would have been implemented.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

What you want is a government managed economy. Where the government provides for all of your needs. Be careful for what you wish for.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

I am careful about redistribution, because I am in favor a limited redistribution. Simply put, we must stop the coming radicalization of the poor.

First, yes we have a problem with our currency!

However, inequality comes from:

1. Tax laws that favor the rich

2. The decline of unions who were a balancing force, helping ensure wages kept up with productivity and that neither executives nor shareholders were unduly rewarded.

3. Globalization where low wage workers faced competition from low-wage workers in Asia

4. And the catch-all, the financialization of our economy!

And about stagnant wages, that is not the government printing money.

1. The Fed abandoned the policy of full employment in favor of low inflation rate - which is great for bankers.

2. Again declining unions.

3. Government policies such as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation, and the refusal to deal with illegal workers.

4. And again there is more.

About government debt, that is not as big of a problem as the personal debt in America.

My point, this issue is more complex than you post suggests.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

Why? Why can't they just take a vote and pass a law? Are you suggesting every single thing they do requires the approval of the people?

About "requires the approval of the people", it is basically the same as Medicare for All. I would argue that as Obamacare fails; that is the next choice. You could adopt the British, Canadian, or some other plan, but the only thing that can be passed is something the people generally understand. That means Medicare for All is next!



The same is true with changes in how we meet the basic needs of the citizen of a country! The people would have to understand "Mincome."

How about we eliminate prepaying for all medical needs and let medical prices return to where the market says they should be instead. Insurance is a scam and adds costs that are unnecessary and artificially raises the prices for all procedures.

But putting that aside, my point still stands, Mincome was not a success, if it were it would have been implemented.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

What you want is a government managed economy. Where the government provides for all of your needs. Be careful for what you wish for.

If you believe that the current US government (and for the past 30 years) is a government that is trying "to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves", you have not been paying attention. America has government by the rich and for the rich.

This means, yes, there are program that are very successful and our government either will not enact them or will get rid of them simply because the rich want another tax cut! And yes, they will give you a tiny tax cut while the rich get their big tax cut.

Simply put, in today's world this statement is ridiculous, "Mincome was not a success, if it were it would have been implemented." The rich, who run this country, do not care how much the rest of us suffer!

 

[ding]

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

No, the liberal cannot do this, because the voters have to also understand what is going on. The requires a period of education.

Why? Why can't they just take a vote and pass a law? Are you suggesting every single thing they do requires the approval of the people?

About "requires the approval of the people", it is basically the same as Medicare for All. I would argue that as Obamacare fails; that is the next choice. You could adopt the British, Canadian, or some other plan, but the only thing that can be passed is something the people generally understand. That means Medicare for All is next!



The same is true with changes in how we meet the basic needs of the citizen of a country! The people would have to understand "Mincome."

How about we eliminate prepaying for all medical needs and let medical prices return to where the market says they should be instead. Insurance is a scam and adds costs that are unnecessary and artificially raises the prices for all procedures.

But putting that aside, my point still stands, Mincome was not a success, if it were it would have been implemented.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

What you want is a government managed economy. Where the government provides for all of your needs. Be careful for what you wish for.

If you believe that the current US government (and for the past 30 years) is a government that is trying "to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves", you have not been paying attention. America has government by the rich and for the rich.

This means, yes, there are program that are very successful and our government either will not enact them or will get rid of them simply because the rich want another tax cut! And yes, they will give you a tiny tax cut while the rich get their big tax cut.

Simply put, in today's world this statement is ridiculous, "Mincome was not a success, if it were it would have been implemented." The rich, who run this country, do not care how much the rest of us suffer!

That sounds like something Karl Marx would say. Read his manuscript.

Human Requirements and Division of Labour, Marx, 1844

 

[ding]

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

I am careful about redistribution, because I am in favor a limited redistribution. Simply put, we must stop the coming radicalization of the poor.

First, yes we have a problem with our currency!

However, inequality comes from:

1. Tax laws that favor the rich

2. The decline of unions who were a balancing force, helping ensure wages kept up with productivity and that neither executives nor shareholders were unduly rewarded.

3. Globalization where low wage workers faced competition from low-wage workers in Asia

4. And the catch-all, the financialization of our economy!

And about stagnant wages, that is not the government printing money.

1. The Fed abandoned the policy of full employment in favor of low inflation rate - which is great for bankers.

2. Again declining unions.

3. Government policies such as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation, and the refusal to deal with illegal workers.

4. And again there is more.

About government debt, that is not as big of a problem as the personal debt in America.

My point, this issue is more complex than you post suggests.

Actually, no it is not more complex than what I posted. It is exactly like what I posted. We are already past the point of no return. It is only a matter of time. Feel free to keep wasting your time arguing about it. But if I were you, I would spend some time thinking about what it will be like when it happens and be prepared for it. You will see it in your lifetime unless you only have ten years left to live.

P.S. I just looked at your profile and you may not see it in your lifetime, but your kids will.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

I am careful about redistribution, because I am in favor a limited redistribution. Simply put, we must stop the coming radicalization of the poor.

First, yes we have a problem with our currency!

However, inequality comes from:

1. Tax laws that favor the rich

2. The decline of unions who were a balancing force, helping ensure wages kept up with productivity and that neither executives nor shareholders were unduly rewarded.

3. Globalization where low wage workers faced competition from low-wage workers in Asia

4. And the catch-all, the financialization of our economy!

And about stagnant wages, that is not the government printing money.

1. The Fed abandoned the policy of full employment in favor of low inflation rate - which is great for bankers.

2. Again declining unions.

3. Government policies such as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation, and the refusal to deal with illegal workers.

4. And again there is more.

About government debt, that is not as big of a problem as the personal debt in America.

My point, this issue is more complex than you post suggests.

Actually, no it is not more complex than what I posted. It is exactly like what I posted. We are already past the point of no return. It is only a matter of time. Feel free to keep wasting your time arguing about it. But if I were you, I would spend some time thinking about what it will be like when it happens and be prepared for it. You will see it in your lifetime unless you only have ten years left to live.

P.S. I just looked at your profile and you may not see it in your lifetime, but your kids will.

Well, I agree that there is a crash coming. However, that last crash in 2008 was not the government. It was more about the bankers taking over our government and de-regulating. In about 1995, the Fed was given the authority to set requirements for home loans. Had the Fed simply said, home loans now require a 5% down payment, the bubble would have deflated.

In fact, home prices would have contracted to normal levels (you cannot have the average price of a home four times and more of the median income), so people would have gotten better deals. The banks would have been better protected as now the market would have to contract more than 5% before people were underwater.

Yet, that was not going to happen because the banks would have seen a decrease in income as the number of loan originations fell. Again, the government was not the primary source of the problem!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But putting that aside, if you are anti-statist you are anti-government which makes you an anarchist and amoral. Ayn Rand explains...

WRONG

You don't know what you are talking about and I don't have time to teach you. I am done.

 

[ding]

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

I am careful about redistribution, because I am in favor a limited redistribution. Simply put, we must stop the coming radicalization of the poor.

First, yes we have a problem with our currency!

However, inequality comes from:

1. Tax laws that favor the rich

2. The decline of unions who were a balancing force, helping ensure wages kept up with productivity and that neither executives nor shareholders were unduly rewarded.

3. Globalization where low wage workers faced competition from low-wage workers in Asia

4. And the catch-all, the financialization of our economy!

And about stagnant wages, that is not the government printing money.

1. The Fed abandoned the policy of full employment in favor of low inflation rate - which is great for bankers.

2. Again declining unions.

3. Government policies such as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation, and the refusal to deal with illegal workers.

4. And again there is more.

About government debt, that is not as big of a problem as the personal debt in America.

My point, this issue is more complex than you post suggests.

Actually, no it is not more complex than what I posted. It is exactly like what I posted. We are already past the point of no return. It is only a matter of time. Feel free to keep wasting your time arguing about it. But if I were you, I would spend some time thinking about what it will be like when it happens and be prepared for it. You will see it in your lifetime unless you only have ten years left to live.

P.S. I just looked at your profile and you may not see it in your lifetime, but your kids will.

Well, I agree that there is a crash coming. However, that last crash in 2008 was not the government. It was more about the bankers taking over our government and de-regulating. In about 1995, the Fed was given the authority to set requirements for home loans. Had the Fed simply said, home loans now require a 5% down payment, the bubble would have deflated.

In fact, home prices would have contracted to normal levels (you cannot have the average price of a home four times and more of the median income), so people would have gotten better deals. The banks would have been better protected as now the market would have to contract more than 5% before people were underwater.

Yet, that was not going to happen because the banks would have seen a decrease in income as the number of loan originations fell. Again, the government was not the primary source of the problem!

The government did play a role in the financial collapse. They should have never allowed interest rates to fall so low. They should have never forced banks to make loans to people who had no chance of repaying them. And they should have never bailed anyone out. And they should have put people in jail.

 

[ding]

But putting that aside, if you are anti-statist you are anti-government which makes you an anarchist and amoral. Ayn Rand explains...

WRONG

You don't know what you are talking about and I don't have time to teach you. I am done.

I know that being amoral is worse than being immoral and that the foundation for libertarians is amorality.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."

It sounds like you want to say you are for redistribution of wealth but are afraid to actually say it out loud.

There is a very simple reason for why this inequality exists; the governments policy of inflating our way out of debt causes the price of everything except wages to inflate. Sure, some wages have increased but only due to market conditions. Whereas things like housing, health care and food have outstripped wages for most of our society.

Since 2000, the growth in wealth has been artificially achieved through the low cost of money. When the cost of money is low, the price of tangible items will increase. Remove the artificial stimulus and you will see the price of everything fall. A position the government cannot allow to happen as it will be impossible for them to meet their debt payment requirements. Which BTW becomes worse with every passing year as our debt retirement liability continues to climb as a percentage of total tax revenues. The percentage of government revenue to service the debt will continue to rise even if we were to balance the budget. The government doesn't want low prices and cannot survive low prices. And I have not even gotten to the problem of social security which is the unspoken driver behind every decision they make especially immigration.

Here is what you need to wrap your mind around, we have already reached the point of no return. The question isn't if our currency will be debauched only when it will be debauched.

I am careful about redistribution, because I am in favor a limited redistribution. Simply put, we must stop the coming radicalization of the poor.

First, yes we have a problem with our currency!

However, inequality comes from:

1. Tax laws that favor the rich

2. The decline of unions who were a balancing force, helping ensure wages kept up with productivity and that neither executives nor shareholders were unduly rewarded.

3. Globalization where low wage workers faced competition from low-wage workers in Asia

4. And the catch-all, the financialization of our economy!

And about stagnant wages, that is not the government printing money.

1. The Fed abandoned the policy of full employment in favor of low inflation rate - which is great for bankers.

2. Again declining unions.

3. Government policies such as the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation, and the refusal to deal with illegal workers.

4. And again there is more.

About government debt, that is not as big of a problem as the personal debt in America.

My point, this issue is more complex than you post suggests.

Actually, no it is not more complex than what I posted. It is exactly like what I posted. We are already past the point of no return. It is only a matter of time. Feel free to keep wasting your time arguing about it. But if I were you, I would spend some time thinking about what it will be like when it happens and be prepared for it. You will see it in your lifetime unless you only have ten years left to live.

P.S. I just looked at your profile and you may not see it in your lifetime, but your kids will.

Well, I agree that there is a crash coming. However, that last crash in 2008 was not the government. It was more about the bankers taking over our government and de-regulating. In about 1995, the Fed was given the authority to set requirements for home loans. Had the Fed simply said, home loans now require a 5% down payment, the bubble would have deflated.

In fact, home prices would have contracted to normal levels (you cannot have the average price of a home four times and more of the median income), so people would have gotten better deals. The banks would have been better protected as now the market would have to contract more than 5% before people were underwater.

Yet, that was not going to happen because the banks would have seen a decrease in income as the number of loan originations fell. Again, the government was not the primary source of the problem!

The government did play a role in the financial collapse. They should have never allowed interest rates to fall so low. They should have never forced banks to make loans to people who had no chance of repaying them. And they should have never bailed anyone out. And they should have put people in jail.

Well, this is true, "The government did play a role in the financial collapse." However, this comment was not the big problem "They should have never forced banks to make loans to people who had no chance of repaying them."

Loans to poor people were not the big money. If that was all that happened, the cost would have been a few tens of billions. The real problem was bank deregulation. This allowed the banks to make the loans, package them, and sell them - that is, the bank was out from under the loan, because the bad loan was now owned by your pension fund. Then the banks went from "mortgage backed securities" to "credit default swaps" - that is, they took up gambling.

If the banks were told that they had to hold and service the loans they would have never made the loans. And if the government told them they must, their lobbyist would have gotten the law changed.

In a broader sense, the problem was and is Neoliberal capitalism, which says that government should not regulate the markets. Ben Bernanke, head of the Fed, said this before Congress.

In fact, in about 1995, the Fed was given the authority to set loan requirements. All they needed to do was require all home loans to have a 5% down payment and the bubble would have deflated. Home prices would have fallen as buyers left the market. Those buying homes would not have needed to spend four times their income for a home, which is economic absurdity. And finally the bank would be in better shape as it would take a 5% decrease in home prices before the home owner was under water.

So who would have been the big loser in this? The banks! The number of loan origination fees would have fallen sharply, and the banks did not want that. So they chose to run the economy into the ground for the sake of their profits.

Remember, historically by law, the banker is more responsible for the loan than the borrower. It is the banker that has the expertise and is required to do "due diligence."