Explains it in a way everyone can understand the problem.
It paints to too one sided view and doesn't offer anything except to be against the fed. Centralizing banking isn't too much of the issue but rather the control of how it operates and loans out money, same deal with any bank, we allow them to have minimal amounts of principal for the sake of economic growth. Numbers can be adjusted but it's been the regulation which leads to their reckless behavior ie we let the rabid dog off it's chain and now we apparently want to take off the muzzle if you believe libertarian's point of view. More regulation and even breaking up of the larger banks in my eye is the proper solution.
Wealth inequality always has to be counter balanced by taxing those who profit the most of it, hell in 1970 we had what 7 tax brackets and now we have 5 a person who owns a small business and makes a good amount better then the avg man is taxed at the same rate as well bill gates, except bill gates can probably hire better people to handle his money and be taxed for less if he so desired. To create opportunity to move up and down in the world programs for those without need to be created and maintained, ie taxes on those who do the best in the econ is funneled into programs to education and training for those who other wise could not afford it. With knowledge they can also build their own future. Which is why any flat tax plan is insane in my eyes.
The united states was built on the ideals of taming the evil inside men to harness that for the greater good. People will always be cheats who wish to benefit themselves before others, you need to control their evil's allow them little but profit off their desires. A man who represents the majoirty of people will look after himself and in turn look after those same people with wealth inequality and wealth equality to the ability to hold office that is no longer how things are ran.
I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
I always hated this sort of wording, we would love to help but my hands are tied. Yes these people just would love to help you people they are full of loving and caring for you. http://www.newsy.com/videos/foreclosure-firm-mocks-homeless Regulations which are there to help prevent exploitation of people. Just like labor laws and tort laws, people who want to exploit you frame it as we are being held back and there is abuse everywhere, we will take care of you we can handle everything for you. Yet we see arbitration being used instead of tort we see disgusting re-framing of a debate, where the old lady who was burned down to the bone who needed surgery due to mc donnalds hot coffee is labeled as a frivolous lawsuit becuase she wanted mc donnalds to pay for her medical bills and yet the public knowledge of that is that oh coffee is hot this is silly.
These people are serpents, wolves in sheep skin. I'd quote biblical text but then people wouldn't believe I'm a atheist. XD
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
What regulations. I've heard people say this but not citing which regulations. Because regulations in general can and do work. It was a big reason the Canadian banking system is doing ok instead of bad. I am genuinely curious. Or is it just lassiez-faire smoke and mirrors.
On October 31 2011 12:25 aksfjh wrote: Higher taxes on the 1% to fund projects that we can all benefit from helps everybody. Upgrading a great deal of internet infrastructure alone would likely reduce costs for businesses as well as give the potential employees better options for employment in a sector that we could really grow globally: information service.
Please clarify this proposal for me. Are you saying that you are in favor of corporate welfare (in the case of internet infrastructure)? If corporate welfare is fair game, what is the decision making process that determines which corporate welfare projects should be attempted?
***sips cup of tea; watches Biff shadow-box and declare himself winner***
I don't see how that would be "corporate welfare" when individuals and corporations would benefit greatly from increased internet penetration and speeds. It's an investment in the sector of the economy we do well in, but has high start-up costs. They're basically e-roads.
If you want an easy-to-understand answer for your pointed question: Any corporate welfare which also gives individuals opportunities and freedoms should be attempted.
Aksfjh, I'll bold the corporate welfare part. The improvements for employment for other people are secondary / "trickle down" / downstream benefit.
On October 31 2011 12:25 aksfjh wrote: Upgrading a great deal of internet infrastructure alone would likely reduce costs for businessesas well as give the potential employees better options for employment in a sector that we could really grow globally: information service.
Normally, businesses (and invidiuals) will pay a premium for faster Internet service, and ISPs will pay to lay down fiber and routing infrastructure that they provide service on. Do it for them is a giveaway to these corporate organizations. Individuals mostly see benefit from last mile infrastructure and even then they split it with their ISPs. Upgrading the big Internet trunks pretty much only benefit big media businesses like Time Warner, Comcast, Media One, AT&T, Google, and Apple.
"Opportunities and freedoms for individuals" could be said about any kind of corporate welfare that is in capital form. If you subsidized oil drilling, ... If you build automobile highways, ... If you provided accurate weather services, ... If you launched communication satellites, ... If you gave research grants to pharmaceuticals, ... If you constructed oil pipelines, ... If you cut taxes for corporations, ...
All these projects all disproportionately benefit big business. And with such non-specific criteria, you need to specify priorities because there will be too many to attempt.
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
This isn't true at all there's almost no real regulation of the market left and they're paying the lowest tax rates they've paid since the great depression.
The majority of the regulation put in place after the great depression, to prevent another, has been lobbied out ( removed ) by the banks and big business.
Trump is a MORON and a LIAR. He knows the truth, you think you get that rich by accident? But you think he'll own up to that fact that they are playing with loaded dice and no babysitters?
The last 30-40 years have been a butchering of whatever regulation was in place and enormous tax cuts.
Glass-Stegall = Prevent customer money from being gambled with ( put in place after great depression ) removed.
The fact that anyone would listen to Trump is insanity since he himself is insane ( and a tool )
Even the Dodd=Frank that was supposed to correct some of the LACK of regulation, which led to the 2008 crisis, got ATTACKED as it went through congress and is now in effect worthless. Why? Because big business and big BANKS especially lobbied their asses off ( read : bribed the government ) to not regulate them. Are you of the belief that a banker who is charged with regulating himself does a good job? That's laughable.
Now we've established that LOW TAXES and NO REGULATION for the "job creators" is already the status-quo; ask your self if it's serving the middle class( majority ) or if it's helping the TOP 1%.
But as you'll notice, most of those regulations and even the agencies that upheld them have since been removed.
Re: Look I don't want to argue about the new deal, the point is the above mentioned content. I personally CANNOT agree with anyone who says the implementation of the legislation that contained Glass-Stegall ( investment bank separation from consumer banks ) to be a failure but I will admit it is neither perfect nor applicable today. That just means we need a New New Deal, one that cannot be lobbied.
But as you'll notice, most of those regulations and even the agencies that upheld them have since been removed.
The economy didn't recover during the New Deal. 1933-1936. The first sign of recovery was 1937 when a combination of fiscal conservatism and Roosevelt's court packing and the "constitutionality" of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation) took the country from fake recovery into the Roosevelt's Recession.
There's a reason why New Deal was repealed. It killed both business and prosperity.
New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
Isn't that a bubble unless we keep making tanks?
Tom Woods has something to say about new deal govt spending
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
Tom Woods has something to say about new deal govt spending
a bubble is when it's inflated worth ie speculators fuck up the market although bubbles can occur for other reasons speculation is the easiest to point to, factories that were made and opened by the US and all the infrastructure made during wwii by mandate of the government, hell texas power grid was made during wwii to fit demand. After wwii demand was still high due to the ravishing of europe and japan, not as high as it was during the war but we extied wwii much better off then we entered it. So your point is not applicable
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
The way people feel economic recovery is in personal prosperity, and that is best measured by the value of private consumption and public social expenditures. The only way GDP can capture that is if GDP is based on market pricing and excludes all defense war spending.
GDP during New Deal years and the recovery was "fake" primarily because of the price manipulation of the New Deal policies. GDP during the War years would have to subtract out defense war expenditures.
Private interest drove the econ into the shitter due to laissez faire practices allowing for rampant manipulation and speculation to expect private interest to build back up an econ properly is absurd it's like giving someone a knife and they stab you, then you want them to do surgery on you to stitch up the stab wound. I maintain the stance of the original ideals of the united states, people are beasts they will rip you apart if nothing held them back, it is the role of government to hold them back, ofc those in government are no better and so you have to structure it so it doesn't corporate with itself so competing interests prevent planned malfeasance. The only thing that prevented the vastly shit fest of income inequality that we have now back during the great depression, is that people payed for their mistakes government only stepped in to clean up the shit fest, not try to stop it. Now government stepped in to prevent a depression form hitting harder in turn allowing the wealthy to make off even better instead of paying with their wealth. So we demand for them to pay for this recovery. But government doesn't want to do that because big money helps get them elected and if you want to be elected again you will need big money esp for federal office so we protest big money,
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
I really dread the fact that some people in the world believe that loaning and removing all government would solve all economic problems, when even the inventors of capitalism, John Locke, Edward Smith and the likes have already PROVED it does not work.
What's wrong with people who can't check simple historic facts?
EDIT: On that note, anyone who quotes Donald Trump, the greediest asshole ever who even failed his own companies and have had numerous foreclosures, is not making a good argument when it comes to economics.
On November 01 2011 05:59 semantics wrote: Private interest drove the econ into the shitter due to laissez faire practices allowing for rampant manipulation and speculation to expect private interest to build back up an econ properly is absurd it's like giving someone a knife and they stab you, then you want them to do surgery on you to stitch up the stab wound. I maintain the stance of the original ideals of the united states, people are beasts they will rip you apart if nothing held them back, it is the role of government to hold them back, ofc those in government are no better and so you have to structure it so it doesn't corporate with itself so competing interests prevent planned malfeasance. The only thing that prevented the vastly shit fest of income inequality that we have now back during the great depression, is that people payed for their mistakes government only stepped in to clean up the shit fest, not try to stop it. Now government stepped in to prevent a depression form hitting harder in turn allowing the wealthy to make off even better instead of paying with their wealth. So we demand for them to pay for this recovery. But government doesn't want to do that because big money helps get them elected and if you want to be elected again you will need big money esp for federal office so we protest big money,
Demanding the wealthy pay for this is a sentiment that I can empathize with. It is also full of injustice in unfairly punishing certain individuals that had nothing to do with the market meltdown. It is also fundamentally too late. The right timing was during the bailout when the federal government had big financial houses by the balls.
On November 01 2011 06:37 holdthephone wrote: are there any historical references to the current situation in the U.S. that can be reflected on here? i ask out of sheer curiosity.
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
Try harder, and yes I am saying that ALL fox-news is lies and propaganda unless accompanied by a SECOND credible source ( a.k.a. not fox news ). The station is no longer " questionably " biased, it too is documented.
Can't wait for the recession to end in a year or two and all this political theorizing dies. The economy goes in cycles and this recession wasn't a product of banks or wall street or 1% blah blah blah, it was a knee jerk reaction to the credit down rating of the US. The whole movement isn't going to fix anything and for the most part it is just mindless class warfare. Not to mention they picked the worst fucking time of the year when policy makers are in election campaign and wont do anything controversial right now. The majority of this thread reflects the same poor attitude congress has, pointless fact throwing and bush beating but no real compromise or action. Redistribution of wealth, at least the kind that these protesters want will and can never happen in the US. Even if taxes do get raised on the wealthy, that money isn't going back into the 99%, it will go into slowly dying government programs like SS, medicare, medicaid. Does unemployment suck? Yes, but camping on the financial center of the East Coast isn't gonna do shit. This is a capitalist country and its gonna stay that way. If you want change vote people in. I'm tired of living in a country where the voter turnout is roughly 30-50% and people bitch about no change. Run for office or get off your ass and vote. Unemployment is at what 9.1%? yeah that's a whole % drop from a year ago and it was going down until SP made one of the most irresponsible decisions in down rating US credit in a recovery period.
On November 01 2011 05:59 semantics wrote: Private interest drove the econ into the shitter due to laissez faire practices allowing for rampant manipulation and speculation to expect private interest to build back up an econ properly is absurd it's like giving someone a knife and they stab you, then you want them to do surgery on you to stitch up the stab wound. I maintain the stance of the original ideals of the united states, people are beasts they will rip you apart if nothing held them back, it is the role of government to hold them back, ofc those in government are no better and so you have to structure it so it doesn't corporate with itself so competing interests prevent planned malfeasance. The only thing that prevented the vastly shit fest of income inequality that we have now back during the great depression, is that people payed for their mistakes government only stepped in to clean up the shit fest, not try to stop it. Now government stepped in to prevent a depression form hitting harder in turn allowing the wealthy to make off even better instead of paying with their wealth. So we demand for them to pay for this recovery. But government doesn't want to do that because big money helps get them elected and if you want to be elected again you will need big money esp for federal office so we protest big money,
Demanding the wealthy pay for this is a sentiment that I can empathize with. It is also full of injustice in unfairly punishing certain individuals that had nothing to do with the market meltdown. It is also fundamentally too late. The right timing was during the bailout when the federal government had big financial houses by the balls.
On November 01 2011 06:37 holdthephone wrote: are there any historical references to the current situation in the U.S. that can be reflected on here? i ask out of sheer curiosity.
Yes. Hoover.
I serious thought to myself this is sad, the first time i was reading up on American history, within 20 years we went from a man who had a diverse background a surely inspirational person, to Coolidge who would only work till 6pm. Considered a lazy vastly corrupt administration which just so happens to correspond with the years before the great depression.
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
Try harder, and yes I am saying that ALL fox-news is lies and propaganda unless accompanied by a SECOND credible source ( a.k.a. not fox news ). The station is no longer " questionably " biased, it too is documented.
zeesh never knew it was so overt with in the fox news network about their agenda i always thought it was much more coy about it not just straight out memos to their employees saying do this don't do that.
On November 01 2011 05:34 semantics wrote: New deal didn't kill jobs the GDP increased after the new deal was enacted it did not explode but the econ did not suffer from it like you frame it to be. Infact after 1937 you see gdp fall until the start of WWII in which government was business it consumed and help produce everything which made our econ boom.
Try harder, and yes I am saying that ALL fox-news is lies and propaganda unless accompanied by a SECOND credible source ( a.k.a. not fox news ). The station is no longer " questionably " biased, it too is documented.
Can you dissent based on content, rather than station. Russia today is generally critical of U.S/Nato. CNN vs Russia China. and yadda yadda. I could smear Al Jazeera to the wall, but I prefer to go after what they are saying, not who owns. Tom Woods is hardly a rupert hack... so content commentary? Didn't think so, you have no point. Smearing Woods for doing a libertarian interview, cause it's on Fox is what? Bias. Now your documented, just like Fox
As for Thomas Woods
Thomas E. "Tom" Woods, Jr. (born August 1, 1972) is an American historian, economist, political analyst, and New York Times-bestselling author.He has written extensively on the subjects of American history, contemporary politics, and economic theory. Woods is considered a libertarian and is a proponent of the Austrian school of economics.
In articles he has written dealing with the political spectrum of Americans, Woods makes a sharp distinction between paleoconservative thinkers with whom he sympathizes, and neoconservative thinkers. In articles, lectures and interviews Woods traces the intellectual and political distinction between the older conservative, or paleoconservative, school of thought and the neoconservative school of thought. Of the latter he writes:
The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear.... [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt.... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary.... Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. They generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.
EPT
for all you leftists) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IQNEQ.jpg)
