|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America.
Was this before or after Shay's Rebellion? Perhaps after the Whiskey Rebellion but before the Civil War? Maybe some poor whites organizing out west and several scattered slave revolts would qualify as "scary" to Washington, Madison, and the rest?
|
On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them Show nested quote +we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. Show nested quote +honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over.
I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ?
Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol.
|
Norway28784 Posts
On April 22 2014 15:47 Velr wrote:In german there is only one word for Turtles/Tortoises... Help 
we call them sea-turtles and land-turtles. I don't understand why it would be appalling that people confuse the two anyway, they have reasonably similar names and very similar appearance and most people will hardly ever see either..
|
On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ?
And nowadays they are asking for more redistribution, higher taxes, more civil servants etc... (i.e: more state, more control)
This is such a joke. Commies slaves working for their capitalists overlords lol.
|
On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ? Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol.
Somewhat off-topic here. If I'm not mistaken, the Lenin flavor of communism is the only one that requires overthrow/destruction. Communism itself only requires the end goal, that the means of production is owned by the people, but not how that end goal is established.
|
On April 22 2014 23:11 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ? Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol. Somewhat off-topic here. If I'm not mistaken, the Lenin flavor of communism is the only one that requires overthrow/destruction. Communism itself only requires the end goal, that the means of production is owned by the people, but not how that end goal is established.
Not at all, it's in communism DNA to be against the state : marx in the gotha program was for the destruction of the state. The existence of the state is only considered as a transitory moment during the revolution (and during this transitory moment, the state need education from the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat) but the end goal is the destruction of the state (and the abolition of the property of the means of production). And before Marx, all utopian socialists or anarchists or communists were against the state.
In fact, I remember when I was a student, reading some public choice economic theory (free market theory) and laugh at how close their positions were to communists' positions on the question of the state.
It's just funny to see people saying "commies" like there's any "communists" still alive and in power anywhere. It's like saying we, in France, are socialists... Kinda sad because I'm pretty sure Danglars is an intelligent fellow, if only he could see the world as it is and actually educate himself before criticising an opposing ideology.
|
On April 22 2014 23:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 23:11 aksfjh wrote:On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ? Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol. Somewhat off-topic here. If I'm not mistaken, the Lenin flavor of communism is the only one that requires overthrow/destruction. Communism itself only requires the end goal, that the means of production is owned by the people, but not how that end goal is established. Not at all, it's in communism DNA to be against the state : marx in the gotha program was for the destruction of the state. The existence of the state is only considered as a transitory moment (and that during this transitory moment, the state needed education from the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat) and the end goal is the destruction of the state (and the abolition of the property of the means of production). And before Marx, all utopian socialists or anarchists or communists were against the state. In fact, I remember when I was a student, reading some public choice economic theory (free marketist theorists) and laugh at how close their positions were to communists' positions on the question of the state. It's just funny to see people saying "commies" like there's any "communists" still alive and in power anywhere. It's like saying we, in France, are socialists... Kinda sad because I'm pretty sure Danglars is an intelligent fellow, if only he could see the world as it is and actually educate himself before criticising an opposing ideology.
Ah, ok, I see. So in both camps, the state is seen as an abomination to the "pure" form. I was probably getting stuck on "destruction," but ultimately it necessitates that the state not exist any more, by any means. Is that correct?
|
On April 22 2014 23:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 23:38 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 23:11 aksfjh wrote:On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ? Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol. Somewhat off-topic here. If I'm not mistaken, the Lenin flavor of communism is the only one that requires overthrow/destruction. Communism itself only requires the end goal, that the means of production is owned by the people, but not how that end goal is established. Not at all, it's in communism DNA to be against the state : marx in the gotha program was for the destruction of the state. The existence of the state is only considered as a transitory moment (and that during this transitory moment, the state needed education from the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat) and the end goal is the destruction of the state (and the abolition of the property of the means of production). And before Marx, all utopian socialists or anarchists or communists were against the state. In fact, I remember when I was a student, reading some public choice economic theory (free marketist theorists) and laugh at how close their positions were to communists' positions on the question of the state. It's just funny to see people saying "commies" like there's any "communists" still alive and in power anywhere. It's like saying we, in France, are socialists... Kinda sad because I'm pretty sure Danglars is an intelligent fellow, if only he could see the world as it is and actually educate himself before criticising an opposing ideology. Ah, ok, I see. So in both camps, the state is seen as an abomination to the "pure" form. I was probably getting stuck on "destruction," but ultimately it necessitates that the state not exist any more, by any means. Is that correct?
Yes for communists, not for free marketist economists.
Most free marketists economists still see that, by the end, the state has some use (police, justice, etc.).
|
On April 23 2014 00:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2014 23:56 aksfjh wrote:On April 22 2014 23:38 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 23:11 aksfjh wrote:On April 22 2014 16:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:On April 22 2014 13:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bundy is a Ron Paultard type. I don't have anything more to say about that the only people I have more contempt for than Ron Paultards are Nazis and commies and not all or even most of the commies. The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language. I confess, it's sometimes easy to sympathize with Paultards. Have a look at the direction the country's been going last 20 years and what both parties do in Washington and it's rather easy to see how some can just snap. Of course, still impossible to stand lengthy discussions with them we shouldn't be scared of the government it should be scared of us and that should be something you believe no matter what else you believe politically. and that includes them being scared we'll overwhelm and overthrow them if they try too much shit. And to think that in one point in time, this was not a radical idea in America. honestly with that "satire" you posted a while back and stuff like this you are an exemplar of what makes people who aren't obsessed with politics think we're all loony. at TL it is one step removed from the worst but the only difference is instead of blatantly calling each other dumb fucks who deserve to be treated like shit we just imply it by making generalizations and mockeries about how everyone else in the world who agrees with the person we're disagreeing with are dumb fucks who deserve to get treated like shit. Oh, and both sides accuse the other of destroying the country and wishing misery on the disadvantaged. It's all settled, all the facts are on each side and the other side is just too dumb to realize the debate is over. I wonder, do you know that communism, at its core, considered that the state is property of the bourgeoisy, and that a revolution could not work without its destruction ? Just saying, you're closer to communism than you think... lol. Somewhat off-topic here. If I'm not mistaken, the Lenin flavor of communism is the only one that requires overthrow/destruction. Communism itself only requires the end goal, that the means of production is owned by the people, but not how that end goal is established. Not at all, it's in communism DNA to be against the state : marx in the gotha program was for the destruction of the state. The existence of the state is only considered as a transitory moment (and that during this transitory moment, the state needed education from the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat) and the end goal is the destruction of the state (and the abolition of the property of the means of production). And before Marx, all utopian socialists or anarchists or communists were against the state. In fact, I remember when I was a student, reading some public choice economic theory (free marketist theorists) and laugh at how close their positions were to communists' positions on the question of the state. It's just funny to see people saying "commies" like there's any "communists" still alive and in power anywhere. It's like saying we, in France, are socialists... Kinda sad because I'm pretty sure Danglars is an intelligent fellow, if only he could see the world as it is and actually educate himself before criticising an opposing ideology. Ah, ok, I see. So in both camps, the state is seen as an abomination to the "pure" form. I was probably getting stuck on "destruction," but ultimately it necessitates that the state not exist any more, by any means. Is that correct? Yes for communists, not for free marketist economists. Most free marketists economists still see that, by the end, the state has some use (police, justice, etc.).
Clearly, if they wish for the federal government to be so powerless to be fearful of a bunch of crazies with "scary looking guns", I don't think they really think the state should exist for even security/justice purposes.
|
So, right-wing monikers and real-world terminologies aren't compatible. Who knew? When DEB or Danglars talk about communists, they aren't talking about communists, they're talking about everyone in the world who isn't a Reaganite.
On April 22 2014 15:50 Danglars wrote:The only commies below Paultards are the well-meaning types or do-gooders. The sweet and caring useful idiots and fellow travelers, to use some slightly outdated language.
This should've been a clue, in that regard. (Happy B-day, Danglars)
|
If they knew anything about the real Reagan, they would probably call him a commie too.
|
The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.
While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.
After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.
The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html
While the US economy and Wall St. especially continue to grow, the middle class and poor continue to stagnate. How long will it go on and what will the end result be?
Also: Stagnant wages and income inequality aside, Americans to a large extent pay out of pocket for health care and education, which are subsidized in European counterparts. These hits obviously impact the poor & middle class the hardest.
|
On April 23 2014 00:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.Show nested quote +While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.
After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.
The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.htmlWhile the US economy and Wall St. especially continue to grow, the middle class and poor continue to stagnate. How long will it go on and what will the end result be? Also: Stagnant wages and income inequality aside, Americans to a large extent pay out of pocket for health care and education, which are subsidized in European counterparts. These hits obviously impact the poor & middle class the hardest.
It's not as bad as suggested. Canada jumped up in the last decade because of the resource boom - pushed up income and currency valuation. A lot of stagnation in middle class income has come from income definitions - most don't count non-cash benefits as income. I don't think that out of pocket healthcare costs have played much of a role as out of pocket costs have been falling (source).
|
Cliven Bundy has trumpeted his "ancestral rights" in his land-use dispute with the federal government, but a report on Monday from a Nevada television station placed doubt on the defiant rancher's claims.
KLAS in Las Vegas obtained property records showing that Bundy's parents purchased the family's ranch in 1948. The Bunkerville, Nev. ranch has been the site of a tense standoff with the federal government over Bundy's use of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Those records appear to contradict Bundy's own history of the ranch, as well as his biography.
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy told KLAS before the government's round up began.
Source
|
I'm pretty sure Native Americans have a better claim to "ancestral rights" than any white man in the country...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 22 2014 13:16 KwarK wrote:
Ah, it's a British English vs American English thing. In British English turtle refers exclusively to the aquatic reptiles with shells who don't spend much time on land (except for laying eggs) and have flippers rather than legs whereas tortoise refers exclusively to the land dwelling reptiles with shells which can't swim for shit and live predominantly in hot dry places.
i thought it was the other way around lol. finding nemo? blastoise?
|
On April 23 2014 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 00:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.
After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.
The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.htmlWhile the US economy and Wall St. especially continue to grow, the middle class and poor continue to stagnate. How long will it go on and what will the end result be? Also: Stagnant wages and income inequality aside, Americans to a large extent pay out of pocket for health care and education, which are subsidized in European counterparts. These hits obviously impact the poor & middle class the hardest. It's not as bad as suggested. Canada jumped up in the last decade because of the resource boom - pushed up income and currency valuation. A lot of stagnation in middle class income has come from income definitions - most don't count non-cash benefits as income. I don't think that out of pocket healthcare costs have played much of a role as out of pocket costs have been falling ( source).
Misleading graphs are misleading. Out-of-pocket share of GDP is roughly the same that it was in 1980 (a much more important start time if we're talking about income and inequality). Also, out-of-pocket costs don't count how much more people are paying for health insurance. While businesses are subsidizing portions of a plan (or all of it), this data doesn't touch how much they pay for a plan.
The price of health insurance faced by the consumer when deciding whether to consume a particular health service is the out-of-pocket cost, the direct and uninsured payment from a patient to a health care provider.
This shows that people are merely experiencing fewer shocks related to healthcare spending, not that their income is necessarily affected by it.
To FallDownMarigold:
Maybe the fact that Americans deal with healthcare costs more directly than their Western counterparts plays a role, but that shouldn't be referenced to as "out-of-pocket" costs.
|
By "out of pocket" I mean simply this:
Americans pay a minimum ~$5000/year on health insurance premia. In EU counterparts this isn't the case. Same is true wth regard to education.
|
On April 23 2014 02:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
By "out of pocket" I mean simply this:
Americans pay a minimum ~$5000/year on health insurance premia. In EU counterparts this isn't the case. Same is true wth regard to education.
I agree. Personally, I still hold my belief that stagnating wages have been offset by increase access to cheap(er) credit. This has made things like home ownership, education, and healthcare more accessible, but at more of a risk in the future. The only thing that I've changed in this view is who is providing the credit.
|
On April 23 2014 02:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 02:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:
By "out of pocket" I mean simply this:
Americans pay a minimum ~$5000/year on health insurance premia. In EU counterparts this isn't the case. Same is true wth regard to education. I agree. Personally, I still hold my belief that stagnating wages have been offset by increase access to cheap(er) credit. This has made things like home ownership, education, and healthcare more accessible, but at more of a risk in the future. The only thing that I've changed in this view is who is providing the credit.
How does access to cheaper credit offset stagnating wages? Debt is a way for capital to lay a claim to future profits by propping up current demand. It's not just that there is more risk in the future. Increasing mass debt on the scale we've seen in the last few decades has no exit strategy. Changing wages into debt is one of the easiest ways to gut the middle class, as all the gains go to those collecting the interest in exchange for access to things that the middle class used to get through higher wages. And as soon as growth slows or stops default will be inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3011
508
216
EPT
