On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
Obviously it was an exaggeration and you know that. I was trying to bring a point across that still holds true, namely that especially blacks still suffer under structural racism. Look up poverty rates, crime rates etc. People could always say that blacks are by nature lazy. But I don't like racism and history shows me that the poor conditions are at fault.
Obvious exaggerations and sarcasm are to me normal ways of talking, sorry.
The poor conditions lead to a culture lead to poor conditions. The culture comes off as lazy, as poverty is accepted. But the reason it is accepted seems to be because of hte conditions.
On August 25 2011 08:25 Froadac wrote: So everyone agrees to it.
And one group of well armed power hungry SOBs intervene? What happens.
I'm not saying that north korea is bad because its communist. I'm just saying that it's not going to be like OOH WE LIKE THAT LETS DO IT OH ITS DONE WE ARE HAPPY. There is a lot more to it than that. And going purely commodity based puts us back to barter, with no intermediary.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
Like I said, it is a part of social evolution. This isn't going to happen tomorrow, or in a week. It will be a slow process and potentially painful. But spreading the idea is only a good thing, because it will speed up the process.
Again, the video I linked might explain to you how we will not need barter or money. You're assuming people are selfish and want to get something, instead of them working together to survive and live well. The fact that people are selfish is a misconception, many people think people are, because the system we live in teaches them that people are and promotes/forces selfishness.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
Most people in general flat out disagree with Ron Paul's proposed policies... it's not so much a matter of not having a national audience.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
The standard by which beeing poor gets measured change over time and are dependent on the region. Poorness is also relative and not absolute. But I don't want to discuss this here because it leads pretty off-topic and I would have to elaborate very much because of the concept that poorness is relative and also has much to do with the fact that (nowadays) western society is built on consuming.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
We should ALL have our qualities of life improving as time and technology advances. What kind of environment do you want the poor to live in? Dark Ages serfdom? Screw vaccines, let's give them all malaria and smallpox!
The richest, most well-maintained person back in the early 1900s lived until they were about 50, TOPS. I would hope to god that the poorest people in our society would reap similar benefits of an improving economy over the years.
Just because someone owns a TV, a microwave and a refrigerator in this day and age, does not make them particularly well-off. It's still an environment of extreme stress when you're unemployed/work hard for a pittance relative to those around you and can't see a way to get your kids the education they need to get themselves out of the hole you're also in. Sitting back watching everyone else in the world enjoy themselves, all thanks to better opportunities than you had, is not fun.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
There are many poor people in america who don't have a lot, but the data I'm talking about is global. I'm not just talking about poor americans, I'm talking about poverty globally. Africa, parts of Asia for example. The numbers about extremely unfair wealth distribution are global.
You can argue that the standard of living is improving but this is in fact untrue. Many poor countries today have a lot less than 30 years ago, because of exploitation by for example multinationals and many other factors. Still, there are far too many people on the world for it to be sustainable, and the foolish ideology of capitalism/produce as much as possible/use as many resources as possible is simply unsustainable and has terrible effects on society, humans and humanity.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
Obviously it was an exaggeration and you know that. I was trying to bring a point across that still holds true, namely that especially blacks still suffer under structural racism. Look up poverty rates, crime rates etc. People could always say that blacks are by nature lazy. But I don't like racism and history shows me that the poor conditions are at fault.
Obvious exaggerations and sarcasm are to me normal ways of talking, sorry.
You say you were exaggerating, and then you go on to reaffirm basically everything you said, that we have "structural racism" which prevents blacks from being able to succeed.
I wouldn't say that "natural laziness" is to blame, I would look more at the culture and mentality that is instilled in each passing generation, of blaming society and it's "structural racism" for their inability to succeed. The idea that success is somehow placed upon you by society instead of being self-derived is definitely a source of recalcitrance, as is the fact that we foster dependence through our system.
At one time my father was living in a state of poverty that very few people in this country experience, uneducated, living in his car, subsisting on oatmeal... After many years he was able to lift himself up from nothing and reach a decent level, and it wasn't because the system coddled his way up, it's because he took complete responsibility for his position in life and was determined to succeed. He didn't blame societies structure for his state, and he didn't wait on redistribution from the rich. Are you going to tell me the only difference between him and others is the color of his skin?
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
Obviously it was an exaggeration and you know that. I was trying to bring a point across that still holds true, namely that especially blacks still suffer under structural racism. Look up poverty rates, crime rates etc. People could always say that blacks are by nature lazy. But I don't like racism and history shows me that the poor conditions are at fault.
Obvious exaggerations and sarcasm are to me normal ways of talking, sorry.
You say you were exaggerating, and then you go on to reaffirm basically everything you said, that we have "structural racism" which prevents blacks from being able to succeed.
I wouldn't say that "natural laziness" is to blame, I would look more at the culture and mentality that is instilled in each passing generation, of blaming society and it's "structural racism" for their inability to succeed. The idea that success is somehow placed upon you by society instead of being self-derived is definitely a source of recalcitrance, as is the fact that we foster dependence through our system.
At one time my father was living in a state of poverty that very few people in this country experience, uneducated, living in his car, subsisting on oatmeal... After many years he was able to lift himself up from nothing and reach a decent level, and it wasn't because the system coddled his way up, it's because he took complete responsibility for his position in life and was determined to succeed. He didn't blame societies structure for his state, and he didn't wait on redistribution from the rich. Are you going to tell me the only difference between him and others is the color of his skin?
While racism is in my opinion a much smaller issue than the guy you're responding to claims (not that we can know for sure), there's a fallacy here.
Yes, your grandfather climbed back up the ladder. But first of all does that mean that everyone has this potential and ability, whether society plays a role in that or not? Of course not! Just because one person can do it that does not mean everyone can.
Societies structures are responsible for many many deaths, a lot of suffering and people in poverty. The complicated part here is that it is group behavior. Why does this group behavior of fighting and competing exist, instead of loving and helping? I think the system our children grow up in teach those children that we need to fight, and this gives them the incorrect idea that we need to do that. In this case, surely society is to blame! If society would spread love instead of differences and fighting at it's core then things would look a lot better. I think we're slowly improving though. There will be a period with more pain, but after that things will be better.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
But unless you add a lot of other baggage they are not "Marxist" arguments at all. That was my point. Just because something shares some common idea with "marxism" does not mean that the idea is "marxist". That idea is "marxist" if it is exclusively "marxist" idea or was derived from "marxism". This is not the case here. Other political systems have came with that idea independently and earlier than "marxism".
Also small nitpick, you are using marxism incorrectly as marxism says nothing of what you want to attribute to it. What you are describing are socialist and communist ideas, marxism is a different beast as it is not really political system, but "scientific" theory of social evolution. That is why I used "marxism" above.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
Nope, Obama would actually win by the biggest margin(or close) if his opponent was Ron Paul. You would be surprised how little average American voter (especially the undecided one) cares about Ron Paul's program. Even most Republicans do not really like him, he has his uses for them but that is it. He does not appeal to fundamentalists too much, the corporatists would do anything to keep him away from doing what he wants and hawkish wing also has no reason to really like him Frankly any politician that would advocate abolishing Social Security or Medicare will lose undecided voters. I think the fact that so many Republican candidates are hinting at it is the only saving grace for Obama. If he presents that fact correctly he has the election in the bag. Of course seeing how he was unable to do that with all the stuff Republicans handed him during last 3 years, he might actually throw it away.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
...and who my good sir would be the owners of this private bank?
You can plead as much as you want but this does come off as a conspiracy theory. The fed is an semi-independent banking authority. The board of governors and chairman are nominated by the president but the policies are not subject to congressional approval. The idea being that money policy is above every-day poltics.
As has been mentioned, what the US needs now is inflation. Printing money is one way to try and up that rate. No big brother here.
I think most people that bother to read have a fairly good understanding of what caused the GFC. The real question is what you do to solve the problem. Letting the banks collapse, and sending them all to jail may make you feel good but it won't solve the problem.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
The FED is not a privately owned bank. End of story, we don't care for conspiracy theories here. Stick to facts. BTW, the U.S. is currently in a liquidity trap, nothing the FED does will help. We need congress to fix things with fiscal policy, monetary policy (which is what all this inflation talk is about) won't do anything to help. For the record, short of voluntarily ruining itself forever, it can't really hurt the situation either.
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote: Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons. 1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east. 2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.) 3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
1. I don't believe you can compare to Japan, b/c Japan does not go to foreign countries and deploy troops everywhere. Many people do not realize how much it costs to keep troops deployed and all the equips that goes along with each mission. But yes, the banking collapse is very similar to the one US had.
2. I didn't quote nor did Ron say foreign policy is the only reason. I typed Ron is the ONLY person who believes foreign policy is fucked up. I didn't type ONLY foreign policy. He also has issues regarding FED printing money to create a huge inflation, bailing out companies that are bound to be bankrupt, creating more government sectors when some of them are useless, etc. I'm assuming the last line you were trying to say "but I don't think" but here's the thing. We've been in the Middle East for roughly 10 years now. This isn't free military we're using and its a huge part of why we are in debt. Also we've created departments/regulations that were interrelated to the war on terror and when you think about 10 years of that shit, I think it has a huge part to do with the debt.
3. I disagree. If Ron were to be the republican candidate, theres no doubt in my mind he'd win. Because by reducing the field to 2(or 3 if any libertarian candidates/independent shows up), almost everyone will hear what Ron's views and he will have recognition from national audience.
The man's economics are backwards, and he's a nutjob in a lot of ways. Firstly, our inflation is below the FED target number. In other words, inflation is too low right now, I don't know why he thinks it's an issue that it might be too high. Secondly, there have been several complete reviews of the bailouts after they occured, and it is generally accepted that the bailouts were a good thing among those who are qualified to review it (Princeton Review for example). I could go on for quite a long time. He's right about our foreign policy being an issue, but he's wrong about so many other things that I can't possibly see him being a good candidate.
Do you know that the FED is actually a privately owned bank? And it is allowed to print money, which it does - out of thin air. See it like a hidden tax on citizens like yourself. And please team liquid, don't ban me for "conspiracy theories", this is true. Just look at some youtube videos where congress members ask questions to FED "bosses" for example. You will see how congress, government and president have absolutely no power over the fed. I am not lying, it simply is a fact. The fed is a privately owned bank.
Why did the bailouts have to occur? Because of what the banks and similar corporations did. It is too complicated to explain it in depth in a short amount of time, but basically, they willingly did something that would give them a lot of money on the short term, and would make them unstable and bankrupt on the slightly longer term. They knew the government would bail them out, resulting in the tax payers money going straight to the banks and it's owners. Interesting fact: their CEOs are now receiving a lot more bonuses than before the previous crisis.
They are responsible for all of it, and only one man went to jail for it! You can call it a good solution, but they basically stole money from the people and got away with it. I say sue them and make them pay, return the wealth to the people and put those men to jail. I really hope this will happen very soon.
...and who my good sir would be the owners of this private bank?
You can plead as much as you want but this does come off as a conspiracy theory. The fed is an semi-independent banking authority. The board of governors and chairman are nominated by the president but the policies are not subject to congressional approval. The idea being that money policy is above every-day poltics.
As has been mentioned, what the US needs now is inflation. Printing money is one way to try and up that rate. No big brother here.
I think most people that bother to read have a fairly good understanding of what caused the GFC. The real question is what you do to solve the problem. Letting the banks collapse, and sending them all to jail may make you feel good but it won't solve the problem.
We can argue about it being privately owned, partially privately owned or whatever the entire day. I will gladly make a post with more supporting arguments tomorrow, but it's almost bed time for me now. Just a short post here.
The individual Federal Reserve Banks "are the operating arms of the central banking system, and they combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization."[36] Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen—three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors--"to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."[37] These regional banks are in turn controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States.
That sounds pretty private to me. This part is also interesting:
Controversy about the Federal Reserve Act and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System has existed since prior to its passage. Some of the questions raised include: whether Congress has the Constitutional power to delegate its power to coin money or issue paper money, why it was passed on December 23 while most of Congress was away for Christmas, whether the Federal Reserve is a public cartel of private banks (also called a banking cartel) established to protect powerful financial interests, and whether the Federal Reserve's actions increased the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s (and/or the severity or frequency of other boom-bust economic cycles, such as the Late-2000s recession).
And this:
The earliest debates on central banking in the United States centered on its constitutionality, private ownership, and the degree to which an economy should be centrally planned. Some of the most prominent early critics were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson, although Madison ultimately renounced his earlier objections. As the effects of central banking, and the Federal Reserve System in particular, became more apparent, new criticisms began to emerge.
Accuse me of conspiracy theories all you want, at least I'm coming up with some facts instead of saying the devil used to illuminati to do it, or something like that. And wikipedia is a way more reliable source than some kind of badly designed frames website. It is also interesting to note how various videos are available where congressmen are asking questions to FED "people", with them dodging the questions or giving really really bad answers. I will provide one of those in this post.
(please ignore some of the crazy comments on the video, they are not mine)
About the solutions part, first of all in my opinion end central banks. But, you should know that banks still are allowed to do what they did which caused the 2008 collapse in the first place. Another crisis is happening already. And really, absolutely nothing was done to prevent banks from doing this again! Isn't that outrageous?
EPT
Frankly any politician that would advocate abolishing Social Security or Medicare will lose undecided voters. I think the fact that so many Republican candidates are hinting at it is the only saving grace for Obama. If he presents that fact correctly he has the election in the bag. Of course seeing how he was unable to do that with all the stuff Republicans handed him during last 3 years, he might actually throw it away.
