Both conservatives and progressives in this country are epically naïve and are missing the point. No amount of Stimulus or austerity alone will fix the economy.
We have to change our debt based monetary system. We could End The Fed and peg our currency to gold, Nationalize the Fed and issue debt free money, or we could something in between those lines
But the bottom line is we will NEVER fix this country without changing our monetary system!!
does anyone not see the irony at play here ? real news network is clearly antiwar and clearly has socialist leanings, but when you think about it, this is contradictory, if you're for socialism then you're therefore in favour of using guns to implement it, which mean you're not antiwar at all, you favour the government waging war on the domestic masses instead of, lets say, Iraqi's.
If I was a nerd and i might be. As an MMORPG gamer i noticed before the group generated game engine for World of warcraft. I couldn't get a group to run for the life of me or one to get replacements. with the dungeon finder program i get more dungeon goods and groups. So i know my tech or systems make life easyer so does a soilid system. Growth has always been a term we want, so why not government get bigger, the whole country as one government. We rule ourselfs.
Isn't it understandable that the republican voter base is "skeptical" about Big Government?
The "Bush years", Obama's "Banking fallout" this is only proof to these voters that Big Government is EVIL. The case for Big Government needs to be made extra Extra EXTRA carefully.
The only option for progressive candidates is to distance themselves Strong and Clear from the hated "liberals". If I would be the speech writer for say Ralph Nader I'll start with loud and noisy "DEATH TO LIBERALS".
The only things that should be shrunk with government is defense and big brother. Aside from that anything dealing with regulating private sector or helping the people should be increased or left alone.
Government can indeed create jobs by in effect telling everyone to break windows and move stones around. But they can not have better knowledge than anyone about what work really needs to be done right now. If government does something it will almost by definition be something that steals away resources from what people would otherwise choose to do. If you measure success by employment numbers, then sure big government works, for a while, but you are ignoring the wasteful economy you create.
GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER CREATED JOBS! THEY CAN ONLY USE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! PRIVATE BUSINNESES CREATE JOBS!!!!!!!!!!! GOV. CAN ONLY STEAL YOUR HARD WORKED MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF you just repeat something with caps lock on it doesn't become true. Have you ever wondered why germany or scandinavia have large governments low unemployment and a higher GDP than america despite having a lower GDP in the past.
I wonder about what Bob Pollin is saying here about payroll taxes being cut will have an ill effect on SS and Mcare because if the tax cut/ cuts are specific to things like Fed W/H and FICA then there is no effect to SS and Mcare, I would really like to see the wording of the cuts because if it is specific to things not concerning SS and Mcare then it is just fear mongering to say it will effect them.
Is it just me or are all of the economic arguments presented by The Real News coming from the same economists at PERI? isn't there another school that agrees with them? Or is it just that The Real News only has access to one economics department at one school in the world?
It is a sign of one's intelligence to be able to identify one's enemies, at least in broad terms. To wit, if you're not equipped with an offshore numbered bank account and the first enemy that comes to mind is 'government/state', or 'the Left', or 'terrorists', then one can confidently state that your intellectual diet has been lacking until now. As dismaying as it may seems, it's never too late to read up on the social forces and classes that have made it their business to screw you over.
Making certain agencies smaller makes them less efficient, other agencies have multiple redundancies to make it easier for private interests to game the system so they should consolidate
The goal should be EFFICIENT government not "let's shrink everything until we can drown govt in a bathtub like master norquist wants!"
Ps no liberal will say "bigger govts awesome!" our biggest gripe is inefficiency or certain things being understaffed
@dffykvn small government IS a nonsense word! but efficient government is the joke of the century... when has a monopoly ever been efficient? & when has someone who can force peaceful people to pay for things ever been efficient? government is a parasite, we need peaceful solutions far more decentralised leadership, preferably to the individual or family unit! power corrupts.
nah, nevermind. who cares about the actual answers here. let's just continue to pat ourselves on the back for being SO REAL, SO ALTERNATIVE. who cares about the whole story as long as we can be haughtily contrarian with no one on set to check our facts
oh, an unchallenged voice from the peri institute, what a surprise! love that "real news"
it is amazing the consistency with which these statist dupes start the story in the middle: "suddenly, there's a problem. what seems to be the quickest way to compensate for it??" that's the entire scope of the conversation, the whole story told
sometime try: how did this problem arise? has it arisen and been solved before? IS ITS RECURRENCE INHERENT TO THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WE'RE JACKING OFF ABOUT HERE
The size of government does not matter, what matters is how much congressmen/senators/presidents/etc are sold and traded for. Whoever controls the money, controls the nation.
@MRBLACKPEARL04 You can't have any job or any freedom without the government. Microsoft wouldn't exist if not for our government-run university system- the best in the world. Government agencies invented the internet, computers, lasers, radar, the modern airplane, containerization of freight (if you've ever bought something from Wal-Mart, you benefited from this) etc. Besides that, look around the world. Saying the government doesn't create jobs is just delusional.
@MRBLACKPEARL04 Besides all that, look around the world. The nations with very big and effective governments have the biggest economic growth and least unemployment. Sweden is the most entrepreneurial country in the world, it also has the biggest welfare system and the most taxes of anywhere in the Western world. Germany is similar. Compare India and China. China has a strong and smart government, they have 10% growth. India is very free-market and corrupt, but has much less growth.
@spartan2600 hahaaha are you kidding me? Japan? China has a HUGE number of economic problem give it five years and you''ll be eating your words. Sweden was the only country not ravaged by the Nazi in WW2 and this left them in a unique position to thrive in the postww2 world but that time is coming to an end as all Swedish econmic indicators are showing
. Also the USA has the most patents filed per year of any country in the world.
@ooshgasm You're full of ad hoc excuses. Sweden isn't the only economy that is doing well (at least compared to the US). Germany itself has an extensive welfare state, but was obliterated in the course of WWII, and half of it was a Soviet satellite up until two decades ago. Incomes have continued to rise in Germany, whereas they've been stagnant in the US since the 80's for about 90% of the population. Also, all the Scandinavian nations are doing about as well as Sweden.
@ooshgasm Its the "free-market" (in the right-wing sense) nations like Latvia and Estonia that totally collapsed (as in 20% unemployment and incomes slashed by ~40%) after the crisis. Also, there's no reason to believe any of the Scandinavian nations have a disaster looming. The biggest threat to Sweden's economy is the US- if it creates another global economic crisis.
@ooshgasm And the fact that the US files more patents (many of them by vulture companies and patent hoarders) just points to the fact that the US is big. Its also a fact that China files more patents than Lichenstein, but that doesn't mean the Chinese have better lives than those living in Lichtenstein. Sweden has the most business startups *per capita* in the world, that is an index that matters.
@MRBLACKPEARL04 Not that merely growing the government is good in and of itself- government is a means to an end, a tool. Used well, the government will fix a self-destructive private-sector.
Webster Tarpley 5 point program to get out of great depression is the plan America needs. American does not need Republicans including Ron Paul who propose plans that are exact copy of IMF/World Bank structural adjustment program and shock therapy.
America needs something like New Deal. America needs job creation by Infrastructure and Industrial development. America needs regulation of economy like reinstating of Glass Steagell act. America needs a wall street transaction tax.
Wait, how does getting rid of unions equate to getting rid of government? Unions are just trade associations for workers, totally consistent with the free market. It is true that SOME (not most) unions do benefit from government spending and regulation, and those benefits should be taken away, but there's no reason to assume that unions would be weaker in a free market.
@QuatFax It depends what you mean by "free." Many on the right think free means allowing rich people exploit their power to control other people. My idea of freedom is that the wealthy can't infringe on the rights of everyone else. For example, it should be illegal for employers to propagandize their workers with anti-union literature, as they are allowed to do in the US (it used to be illegal until Taft-Hartley).
@QuatFax If you have a right-wing concept of "free" and "free market," (like Ron Paul or George Bush) then unions would certainly be obliterated by employers if such ideas were imposed. Employers have an unfair advantage- they own all the capital- the factories, mines, shipyards, stores, railways, etc. Real freedom means evening the playing field.
@spartan2600 See, I disagree. I don't believe the government should stop employers from propagandizing their workers or anything like that (not that employers should do that). Unions could easily form without any restrictions on what employers can do. The problem is that government has strengthened the hands of employers relative to labour. First, they've made many of the most effective union tactics illegal, and second, government regulation and subsidies encourage concentration of capital.
@QuatFax What you fail to recognize is that there is not a symmetry of power between bosses and workers. Given a system in which a tiny economic elite own the means of production, the mass of workers begin at a disadvantage before we even consider the ways government affects the equation. Here's a simple illustration- bosses can easily propagandize workers against their will since bosses can fire workers. However, workers cannot propagandize their bosses in any way.
@spartan2600 But you are assuming that a tiny economic elite would control the means of production without government support, and that is one hell of an assumption. Concentration of capital has always followed government intervention in the market, from the Enclosures to mercantilism to the modern-day highway and military complexes. That's not to say there can't be concentration of capital under a free market, but it would be far more difficult to achieve and far flimsier.
@QuatFax Capitalists require the government to protect them. As soon as government were to dissappear, all the rich people's mansions and businesses would be sacked. It is simply irrational for one group of people to make billions of dollars they didn't earn, while everyone else toils and never make what they earn.
@spartan2600 "Capitalists require the government to protect them"
EXACTLY! Capitalism (if we define it as an economic system ruled by those who control capital) is NOT consistent with the free market. If not for the government, capitalists could NEVER manipulate the economy as they do. Only government policy allows these huge corporations and their owners and managers to plow over the working class.
@QuatFax Sorry for the late reply, but government is a tool. It is currently used to accelerate the concentration of wealth/capital, but that is not its only use. In fact, many things, like unemployment, homelessness, lack of healthcare and education can only be solved collectively, not through piddly charities or through profit-driven enterprises. Government is the only collective tool we have at the moment that could fix those issues.
@spartan2600 Government is inherently a tool of the wealthy; it cannot be effectively used to help the poor. The nature of government is to take small plunders from the masses and hand them over to individuals; the masses are far less likely to notice their small losses than the rich are to notice their large gains. If government spent money on the masses, however, it would have to take every cent that it doles out, so the masses would be no better off overall.
@spartan2600 In addition to government's inability to help the masses, it is also impossible for the masses to effectively monitor government. The costs of watching and evaluating each politician, and then campaigning against each one that doesn't live up to expectations, is incredibly high. The rich can do this because they can hire lobbyists, but the poor and middle classes haven't the time or the money to exert any real influence on government.
@QuatFax Saying we need to toss out most, but not all of government but leave in place capitalism and business is a recipe for capitalist tyranny and profit-driven privation for most of us.
The hammer of government is being used to smash in windows. That doesn't mean we destroy all hammers since we cannot repair those windows or build new houses without hammers.
@spartan2600 I'm actually saying we should toss out ALL government.
See, the problem is that government, unlike a hammer, is inherently immoral, because it relies on the initiation of the use of force. You would not say that rape is sometimes immoral, but can be used for good things; rape is always wrong, and the use of government is always wrong.
@QuatFax There really is no such thing as a "free market." You admit there would still be inequalities under a free market. Well, those wealthy few who find themselves at the center of a concentration of power will impose their own rules and regulations. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out- they'll just do what is in their own greedy self-interest. Playing fair is bad for profits. Anyways, businesses already manipulate and coerce eachother, even where governments stay hands-off.
@spartan2600 I admit there would be inequalities, but nothing on the scale necessary to reestablish the state and regulate their competitors. And businesses cannot, by definition, coerce their competitors in the free market; if people are being coerced, there isn't a free market (the free market is defined as an economy without coercion). Businesses could manipulate each other, but if a business gets a reputation for fraud, it's hardly going to make any sales.
@spartan2600 No it isn't; it's just a definition. If I say "Plato is the author of The Republic" and then restate it in another manner (such as "Plato wrote The Republic"), that isn't a tautology; I'm just stating it differently to make sure it is understood.
@QuatFax Therefore, government is needed to balance this imbalance of power. You are right to say that government has, especially in the US, illegalized the best tactics labor have, but again what you fail to realize is that the reason wild-cat strikes are illegal is because bosses begin with unfair advantages, they control the factories, but they also buy the election, control the mass media, write the school textbooks and they have bigger incomes and budgets than even the biggest unions.
@spartan2600 "You are right to say that government has, especially in the US, illegalized the best tactics labor have..."
So, you are aware that the US is only democratic in name and theory?
"Government is a tool"
Yes, and the quality and virtue of that tool is determined both by WHAT that tool is (which particular system of government) and HOW it is used in practice (how closely it adheres to and validates the pure theory, or deviates from it and discredits itself).
@spartan2600 And yet, in spite of all those larger budgets and incomes, the bosses could not deal with secondary strikes or boycotts. That's why they made them illegal; if they could deal with them in a free market, they wouldn't NEED the government to make them illegal. My point is to simply establish a free market, where the government doesn't do ANYTHING, and the bosses will quickly fall to sympathy strikes and boycotts.
@QuatFax Also, many government regulations and other laws *excacerbate* concentration of capital, but there was always a concentration of capital even before those laws were passed. Government is a tool, it can be wielded by the rich to make the rich richer, or the workers can fight back and make a level playing field, or better yet, get rid of the rich bums.
@spartan2600 Government has never been wielded effectively by the poor. The nature of the state is to establish an elite. The state, by definition, monopolizes and concentrates the use of physical force; in any such system, those most likely to abuse their power are most likely to rise to the top. The state can only ever change the makeup of the elite; it cannot abolish the elite and empower the lower classes.
@26libertarian Ha! I love people like you, "free market capitalist or state capitalist". I truly wish for Ron Paul to be elected in your country, this would be fantastic!
@noprofitmaximierung " I truly wish for Ron Paul to be elected".. me too, but I doubt it, mass media continues to marginalize Ron Paul, he not the bankers' kinda man. So the looting, the frauds, the lies, the corruption will continue,.... till the music stops! Peace 2u
@joshua1auhsoj Small government meants a privatized government. That is not more freedom. That is less. That is more freedom for the wealthy. More for Wallstreet, Koch brothers, Bankers, ect. That is not more freedom for the average person.
@joshua1auhsoj As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy, also a George Washington quote
@captcrais101 "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases "- Thomas Jefferson
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. " -Benjamin Franklin
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas jefferson
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases "- Thomas Jefferson
@joshua1auhsoj The only area that takes away freedom as government grows is with the growth of big brother. We have too much survailance and the police have become stormtroopers. But Government regulationg the private sector or government helping the people must be made bigger since we need to get big money out of it.
@captcrais101 the constitution was written very precicly, to restrain the power and force of government and to protect the liberties of each and every one of us.
NO NO NO, If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to AMEND IT.
A "living" Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they've simply misunderstood: the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times. A living Constitution is a dead Constitution.
@LeonHard5 No one is popularising State Capitalism, we are talking about having democracy not only outside the economy, but also AT the Workplace. If the workers could decide if the capital that they produce needs to go to feed themselves and not go to the company's profits, if there were true Socialism, then we would not have 1 Billion humans Permanently severly undernourished by capitalist unemployment and extortion, get it?
If they cut the payroll tax, they are going to have to make up for that in other ways. I say increase the payroll tax on executive bonuses, and pay for the cuts in payroll taxes with that money.
@student507 So you want to keep going on with this antidemocratic organisation of the distribution of surplus value? Would it not be a lot more "free" market if we had democracy at the workplace, so that the 3 billion humans that earn less than $2 a day, could decide if they need to feed their family from their production, not give it to the boss? If you Capitalists have not noticed, Your profit maximizing overproduction and forced overconsumption is destroying not only the workers of this worl
Do not popularize socialism!!! We in Europe have enough experience to share. Less goverment, less regulations! Goverment is not smart to deside what is good and what is bad. Let people to decide, you stupid. Read some history and economy books... before sharing crap..
@LeonHard5 When Govt rules and dictates, it's socialism period: must have insurance, must have id, compulsory school attendance, food stamp programs, minimum wage laws, must have licenses, permits and registrations, subsidies to corporations etc.etc. Obey, Submit and shut up or else. All ism's stink!
The smaller the government, the less crony capitalism, the less revolving door between private & public entities, the less special interest, the less corporate welfare, the greater the separation between corporation & state.
But only government can do massive expensive projects like the Hoover dam, highways & things like that.
Neither small nor big government "creates" jobs that lead to growth. The jobs they create are short term stimulate to the public or necessary roles in the government itself.
The difference between the two is, small government, i.e. efficient government, does not sap the public for funds to justify the existence of redundant or useless departments, and more money stays in the hands of the people.
And austerity leads to stagnation, we need a new economic model, one not based on perpetual growth.
governments cannot create jobs, as their only tool is to use violence to force people... jobs are created by mutual trade of products/services etc.. not by state violence.
@djdnauk1977 I don't accept your definition of violence.
Those definitions are exclusive to libertarian circles because no normal person can call paying taxes "violence" with a straight face
If you don't want to pay taxes you have enough time to leave and go to some african country with all of your money that was transferred to an offshore bank
If you don't want to pay your part in maintaining society then move the fuck out!
@dffykvn "Those definitions are exclusive to libertarian circles because..."
*Right* libertarian circles. I'll remind you that the first people to use the word "libertarian" were communists, anarchists and socialists. "Libertarian" is still a synonym for "anarchist" in the non-English-speaking world, especially in Greece or Spain, and it used to be the same in America before Objectivists and others hijacked the term roughly 50 years ago.
@spartan2600 Well the term "liberal" is derived from nineteenth century England and meant maximum freedom for individuals to pursue their self interest with minimum govt. intervention in ANY way. This means economically as well as politically. Terms get hijacked all the time.
@ooshgasm 19th century "liberals" weren't against govt. intervention "in any way." They were against the power of forces alien and removed from the individual- that includes governments and private businesses alike. However, in 1800 private ventures didn't have any significant power compared to the state, so classical liberals spent their time criticizing the state, but the same criticisms would apply to businesses even more so.
@ooshgasm After all, governments are *potentially* democratic. Businesses are private tyrannies by their very nature. One of the first and most important Classical Liberals was Otto Von Humboldt. He wrote in 1792 that state intervention in social life is legitimate "if freedom would destroy the very conditions without which not only freedom but even existence itself would be inconceivable", which are precisely the circumstances that arise in an unconstrained capitalist economy.
@spartan2600 This supposedly "unconstrained capitalist economy" exists in this supposedly "democratic" govt...
What is the value in democracy about? Mob rule is lame. Power in numbers is a logical fallacy. The majority of people can choose the morally wrong choice at the expense of minority groups. Furthermore, the majority aka the mob can be persuaded to choose a morally wrong choice, at their own expense, for superficial rewards and instant gratification, by the elites in both bzns and govt.
@dawimythnotolo Your Lenin-like and cynical hatred of democracy and the mass of the people, the "mob" as you call them, is disgusting. The history of oppression is the history of powerful minorities exploiting weak majorities- bosses exploiting workers, slavemasters exploiting slaves, a few thousand Europeans colonizing and enslaving millions of Indians, Africans, Aborigines, and so on. Democracy and equality are not oppressive, they are the solutions to oppression.
@spartan2600 You clearly have no idea what principles the US was founded on, and what government the US is SUPPOSED to have.
US Govt - Democratic REPUBLIC, in which we elect officials that then make decisions
It is distinguished from a DIRECT DEMOCRACY in that we, the people do NOT vote on the actual decisions made, but on who makes the decisions. Direct democracy was seen as perilous by the founders in that it allowed a majority, THE MOB, the potential to oppress MINORITY GROUPS.
@spartan2600 The GOAL they were trying to achieve by establishing a democratic REPUBLIC was to ensure that ALL people's rights were protected, not just the majority nor just the minority, but ALL PEOPLE, which by definition is the ABSENCE of OPPRESSION. The reason I say TRYING is because the goal was not achieved. For whatever reasons the democratic Republic devolved into corporatism while maintaining the FACADE. This is why we get the kind of confusion on the issue you exhibited...
@spartan2600 In Theory: John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing reps who legislate within the limits of constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
@spartan2600 Well the rich have done a good job, I can't see libertarianism as anything other than a bunch of rich people becoming a new form of lord of the manor
@dffykvn Libertarians are to conservatives, what intelligent design is to creationism. Libertarians enjoy posturing themselves as being above it all, somehow.
Today's "libertarians" have created an idolatry of personal and family wealth as the fundamental sacrament of economics. A far cry from Adam Smith.
@nycic Adam smith believed that a public sphere was necessary for the public good and believed in regulation
He was a time travelling stalin if you ask me! Mirite glenn beck?
Ps did you know thomas paine, the guy that the teatards seemingly love wrote about how land shouldn't be privately owned and if it is privately owned the owners should pay back the people for being allowed to keep using it
@dffykvn LArry Sommers, the former private bank chief Alan Greenspan, Peter Schiff, Geihtner, Bernanke are all lbertarians who don't want any regulation whatsoecer.
There's another video where a guy told me how awesome china is for having no environmental and labor regulations and that's why businesses are flocking there
When I brought up the cancer villages and suicide netting at foxconn he called me a conspiracy nut
These retards have no connection to the real world or just hate the poor so much that they get off on fucking them over with their neu feudal nightmare
@LouieDaProtectionist "LArry Sommers, the former private bank chief Alan Greenspan, Peter Schiff, Geihtner, Bernanke are all lbertarians who don't want any regulation whatsoecer."
What ever you're smoking must be some good shit.... First, how can you put Schiff in the same list as the "brilliant" larry summers or Bernanke... Secondly, how are any one of them libertarian. The smoke must destroy brain cells too apparently. Define Libertarian.
@dffykvn Greenspan wasn't as hands off you might think . He routinely manipulated interests, which artificially stimulates or slows the economy. DOT com and housing bubble anyone? He didn't necessarily follow Ayn Rands economic philosophies.
@dffykvn How can you say that someone who manipulates INTEREST RATES and the nation's money supply as having a little role( hands off) in the economy? With his manipulation in the markets via interest rates and other FED schemes, he produced an environment that enabled these bubbles to form in the first place. What do you think happens when you force rates down for too long?
There would not have been a housing bubble with the funds to fuel it. Congress can legislate all it wants.
@Xenthoid "There would not have been a housing bubble with the funds to fuel it. Congress can legislate all it wants." replace the 'without' where with is for correction.
When the housing bubble was forming and everyone was praising "the maestro" the people that wanted him to burst the bubble were called loons and "interventionists"
Now that the bubbles burst the fallouts blamed on intervention by the same high lords of finance that gave him accolades
If you want to include interest rates, alright, but his refusal to hold banks accountable for crimes and routinely breaking regs played a bigger part (in my eyes)
@dffykvn "I kind of like how everyones criticizing him now" just people who don't know anything about the business cycle and the effects of monetary policy.
"If you want to include interest rates, alright, but his refusal to hold banks accountable for crimes and routinely breaking regs played a bigger part (in my eyes)" While i see your point, i don't think it is the FED's mandate to regulate banks. That's congress. They destroyed Glass-Stegall with the help of the banking sector.
To me refusing to make banks follow regulations qualifies him for the laissez faire whether he did anything with interest rates or not
He allowed banks violate any rule they wanted and that permissive attitude showed everywhere from giving subprime loans to people who qualified for fixed rates, to the obscene bonuses and how they bullshitted congress
If you want to call him hands on, I'd agree ... that he used kids gloves and only feebly pushed
@dffykvn "To me refusing to make banks follow regulations qualifies him for the laissez faire whether he did anything with interest rates or not"
That's not what laissez faire is. A Laissez Faire approach would have been to allow the markets to set interest rates and dictate the amount of money in circulation. He didn't do this. he purposely manipulate the markets.
@dffykvn "He allowed banks violate any rule they wanted and that permissive attitude showed everywhere from giving subprime loans to people who qualified for fixed rates, to the obscene bonuses and how they bullshitted congress" Entities like the SEC were relaxed with regulation enforcement. The Greenspan provided the excess credit to fuel wall streets gambling, bad investments and usage of derivatives. Wall street and the banking sector in turn influenced congress to weaken regulation.
@Xenthoid Isn't glass steagall just one of those regulations that the evil government uses to oppress the heroic galts of the banking sector?
Sorry I had to get that dig in :P
There were boom and busts before the fed there are boom and busts during the fed and would be boom and busts after the fed
Post New Deal we had a stable market with few (I'm pretty sure there weren't ANY busts) until banks started getting deregulated and we had bust after bust after bust
@dffykvn "If you want to call him hands on, I'd agree ... that he used kids gloves and only feebly pushed"
I am still lost as to how you can say he used gloves or kids gloves for that matter. He, and now Bernanke, has pumped trillions of dollars of credit into the markets. These people literally control the US economy through its money supply. They can influence the unemployment rate just by raising reserve ratios and buy up assets.
@graaaaaagh No the objectivist philosophy sucks because it was written by a sociopath that glorified sociopaths because she was in love with a sociopath
Capitalism needs laws and rules, either you can have a government make capitalism work for the people, or you can keep the people from getting involved and let it get more and more industry friendly until it can steamroll people
@dffykvn Laws and rules emerge in society. The government extracts resources from the people whether they like it or not, so it cannot accurately represent them.
A voluntary organization is entirely accountable to the people, because it's up to the people whether it stays in business. People who want an "unregulated" market want REAL regulation - that of the people, not that of the state, which is monocentric and has no incentive to do any good. A sound legal order has to be polycentric.
@dffykvn I rather live in a society with polycentric law, where my group, with its laws can hold financial predators responsible for their crimes against economies and the people that depend on these economies. The guy you cited that you claimed would "debunk" libertarianism only served to debunk the current system. He says polycentric law, still exists but in this case, assisted by the POWER of the STATE, the multiple standards of law are ALWAYS STACKED against the lower socio-economic classes.
@graaaaaagh Agreed. What knuckle draggers fail to realize is that a highly invasive government is easier to be influenced or hijacked by big business, special interest and not to mention corporate welfare queens. They also fail to understand the concept of CORPORATISM and how it thrives in big government environments.
@graaaaaagh Big business doesn't care what size government is, so long as they're de-regulating for them.
If big government gives them de-regulation - good! If small government gives them de-regulation - even better!
They want us to stay in a duality arguement of small vs big government, so they can continue working behind the scenes: de-regulating, de-regulating, de-regulating!
@yo1dude1man "De-regulation" while the companies themselves are still established by the state is hopeless. The government is what gives corporations their power.
@graaaaaagh And its the People that give government their power. Why has everyone lost sight that those in office are ONLY administators/servants to the real government? The People! We the People MUST hold govt administators accountable for their actions & improper goverance? This current Recession & its origin can be pointed to 1 piece legislation: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, pushed through by 3 Republicans [see names], signed by Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton.
@yo1dude1man Glass-Steagall, all it did was separate investment banks and commercial banks. The removal of that limit is not what caused the recession.
Accountable government is a pipe dream, but it'd help to get rid of the Fed and the IRS, and legalize competing currencies like the Liberty Dollar so there's sound money. The people at the top are pushing for war in order to further zombify the dollar.
@graaaaaagh Really? You honestly believe that? You obviously haven't done your homework!
1.5 Trillion that we absorbed into our deficit is from all the bad mortgage notes [again only mortgage notes!]
The other 10.5 Trillion we absorbed is all the collateralized derivatives and collateralized default swaps that were created on the back of those bad mortgage notes by Wall Street, Goldman Sacs, JP Morgan, etc, etc..
And if Glass-Steagall was still in place - THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED!
Ron Paul wants IMF/world bank Structural adjustment plan and shock therapy on American economy. Just go to wikipedia and check IMF structural adjustment.
Ron Paul would not involve any global institution like the IMF in his administration.
Cutting $1 trillion from the budget in his first year will start putting the US back on the right track.
Returning the power of the purse to Congress and removing it from the privately-controlled "Federal Reserve" would also remove a main cause of the nation's problems.
US government has no control over its Monetary policy, trade policy and financial markets. How can you call it a "big government"? If US had big government, Federal reserve would be under Congress, Financial markets would be under tight regulatory control. There would be no WTO and free trade agreements. US actually has very small government which does not have control over its economy.
Stop repeating hollow statements of Ron Paul and start thing on your own.
@kkbose LMAO how do you think these financial institutions even exist? If you think the US has a "very small government" you're not even worth talking to.
@zephyrsimon Actually, real independents might be a viable solution instead of people inside the Republican party pretending to be independents when the majority have voted the GOP ticket (and still will) no matter who's on it for decades...
Libertarians don't all vote, or simply want "stronger state government", and if a chance of "running the white house" is your litmus test of how valid an idea is, you're severely deluded.
Try reading Tom Woods instead of Paul Krugman.
What this comes down to is whether I should be forced to pay for what the state does. Do you want to use force against me, or not?
@dffykvn theres nothing to accept, its a fact... dont want to pay for a war? refuse to pay taxes & you will be violently thrown into a cage or beaten/shot for resisting... what you believe has no affect on the reality of state violence.
what you said is like saying "dont like rape, move somewhere it isnt morally accepted" its makes no sense, if you care about people in the slightest
@dffykvn im equating state violence with any violence, many men get raped in jail or beaten or worse... no need to act immature... how do you think people are forced to pay taxes that fund wars etc??? they dont ask nicely lol
@djdnauk1977 I dare you (on the day you file taxes) to go to a place where cops are trying to help a woman they found in an alley with her panties torn off and cum all over her
Go up to them, tell the cops you're there to counsel her
Go to her and tell her "I know exactly how you feel, I feel your pain....I just filed my income taxes"
She'll certainly stop crying...then get arrested for beating you to death
@dffykvn what are you talking about? thats like me saying go tell that to an iraqi family whose family were blown up in front of them & whose child is deformed from depleted uranium used there by US/UN troops etc... im not blaming you, im saying government are a monopoly allowed to take money by force, theyre bound to kill & be corrupt, its a free money pit... no one is accountable, there no competition, their only tool is violence.
What kind of reporting is this PAUL? Let's see this idiot guest of yours take on someone who can actually explain and defend the opposite position. How about you have him argue Peter Schiff on this topic.
This has been flagged as spam show
Both conservatives and progressives in this country are epically naïve and are missing the point. No amount of Stimulus or austerity alone will fix the economy.
We have to change our debt based monetary system. We could End The Fed and peg our currency to gold, Nationalize the Fed and issue debt free money, or we could something in between those lines
But the bottom line is we will NEVER fix this country without changing our monetary system!!
dfg93353 3 months ago
does anyone not see the irony at play here ? real news network is clearly antiwar and clearly has socialist leanings, but when you think about it, this is contradictory, if you're for socialism then you're therefore in favour of using guns to implement it, which mean you're not antiwar at all, you favour the government waging war on the domestic masses instead of, lets say, Iraqi's.
taxation if theft
HuxleyWasRight 3 months ago
If I was a nerd and i might be. As an MMORPG gamer i noticed before the group generated game engine for World of warcraft. I couldn't get a group to run for the life of me or one to get replacements. with the dungeon finder program i get more dungeon goods and groups. So i know my tech or systems make life easyer so does a soilid system. Growth has always been a term we want, so why not government get bigger, the whole country as one government. We rule ourselfs.
frankscola 3 months ago
YES!!!
PatricksTime 3 months ago
Yes, because the government won't be taking my money away that I could put into better use.
SigR1988 3 months ago
Isn't it understandable that the republican voter base is "skeptical" about Big Government?
The "Bush years", Obama's "Banking fallout" this is only proof to these voters that Big Government is EVIL. The case for Big Government needs to be made extra Extra EXTRA carefully.
The only option for progressive candidates is to distance themselves Strong and Clear from the hated "liberals". If I would be the speech writer for say Ralph Nader I'll start with loud and noisy "DEATH TO LIBERALS".
akkonburike 3 months ago
The only things that should be shrunk with government is defense and big brother. Aside from that anything dealing with regulating private sector or helping the people should be increased or left alone.
captcrais101 3 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@captcrais101 Watch Real Footage Of Real Banks Causing real Problems
Watch “How To Rob A Bank” at UmotionS.com.
See the trailer at my channel with the link in it’s description.
DedmanUmotionS 3 months ago
The simple answer to this question is NO!
captcrais101 3 months ago
Government can indeed create jobs by in effect telling everyone to break windows and move stones around. But they can not have better knowledge than anyone about what work really needs to be done right now. If government does something it will almost by definition be something that steals away resources from what people would otherwise choose to do. If you measure success by employment numbers, then sure big government works, for a while, but you are ignoring the wasteful economy you create.
mortalisk 3 months ago
Bigger Government = More Spending = Less money in the hands of individuals = Less investment = Less jobs. Common sense.
asperin 3 months ago
Jobs are for the industrialized modern day slaves referred to as citizens.
bugsz1 3 months ago
GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER CREATED JOBS! THEY CAN ONLY USE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! PRIVATE BUSINNESES CREATE JOBS!!!!!!!!!!! GOV. CAN ONLY STEAL YOUR HARD WORKED MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Valdris1987 3 months ago
@Valdris1987
IF you just repeat something with caps lock on it doesn't become true. Have you ever wondered why germany or scandinavia have large governments low unemployment and a higher GDP than america despite having a lower GDP in the past.
Arrrz77 3 months ago
I wonder about what Bob Pollin is saying here about payroll taxes being cut will have an ill effect on SS and Mcare because if the tax cut/ cuts are specific to things like Fed W/H and FICA then there is no effect to SS and Mcare, I would really like to see the wording of the cuts because if it is specific to things not concerning SS and Mcare then it is just fear mongering to say it will effect them.
daveusaz1218 3 months ago
Is it just me or are all of the economic arguments presented by The Real News coming from the same economists at PERI? isn't there another school that agrees with them? Or is it just that The Real News only has access to one economics department at one school in the world?
redrajani 3 months ago
Having no government would create the most jobs.
travz21 3 months ago
rich= jobs for middle class= jobs for the poor=no need for welfare for the poor.....so why the rich not helping out of making the jobs???
rebelrecycler 3 months ago
absolutely! Govt crowds out capital that would otherwise go to more productive jobs.
ferrozm 3 months ago
@ferrozm When taxes are allowed to be repatriated americans get laid off en masse
dffykvn 3 months ago
It is a sign of one's intelligence to be able to identify one's enemies, at least in broad terms. To wit, if you're not equipped with an offshore numbered bank account and the first enemy that comes to mind is 'government/state', or 'the Left', or 'terrorists', then one can confidently state that your intellectual diet has been lacking until now. As dismaying as it may seems, it's never too late to read up on the social forces and classes that have made it their business to screw you over.
GodlessXVIII 3 months ago
I didn't hear any answer to the video question.
Does Smaller Government Create More Jobs?
salbal777 3 months ago
@salbal777 Small government is a nonsense word
Making certain agencies smaller makes them less efficient, other agencies have multiple redundancies to make it easier for private interests to game the system so they should consolidate
The goal should be EFFICIENT government not "let's shrink everything until we can drown govt in a bathtub like master norquist wants!"
Ps no liberal will say "bigger govts awesome!" our biggest gripe is inefficiency or certain things being understaffed
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn small government IS a nonsense word! but efficient government is the joke of the century... when has a monopoly ever been efficient? & when has someone who can force peaceful people to pay for things ever been efficient? government is a parasite, we need peaceful solutions far more decentralised leadership, preferably to the individual or family unit! power corrupts.
djdnauk1977 2 months ago
@OldSchoolSkill lol
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
nah, nevermind. who cares about the actual answers here. let's just continue to pat ourselves on the back for being SO REAL, SO ALTERNATIVE. who cares about the whole story as long as we can be haughtily contrarian with no one on set to check our facts
BroBroDude 3 months ago
oh, an unchallenged voice from the peri institute, what a surprise! love that "real news"
it is amazing the consistency with which these statist dupes start the story in the middle: "suddenly, there's a problem. what seems to be the quickest way to compensate for it??" that's the entire scope of the conversation, the whole story told
sometime try: how did this problem arise? has it arisen and been solved before? IS ITS RECURRENCE INHERENT TO THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WE'RE JACKING OFF ABOUT HERE
BroBroDude 3 months ago
The size of government does not matter, what matters is how much congressmen/senators/presidents/etc are sold and traded for. Whoever controls the money, controls the nation.
Idtelos 3 months ago
Government does NOT create jobs people do. It's the regulations and fees / taxes that prevent people from doing so. It's Not a free country
MRBLACKPEARL04 3 months ago
@MRBLACKPEARL04 You can't have any job or any freedom without the government. Microsoft wouldn't exist if not for our government-run university system- the best in the world. Government agencies invented the internet, computers, lasers, radar, the modern airplane, containerization of freight (if you've ever bought something from Wal-Mart, you benefited from this) etc. Besides that, look around the world. Saying the government doesn't create jobs is just delusional.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@MRBLACKPEARL04 Besides all that, look around the world. The nations with very big and effective governments have the biggest economic growth and least unemployment. Sweden is the most entrepreneurial country in the world, it also has the biggest welfare system and the most taxes of anywhere in the Western world. Germany is similar. Compare India and China. China has a strong and smart government, they have 10% growth. India is very free-market and corrupt, but has much less growth.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 hahaaha are you kidding me? Japan? China has a HUGE number of economic problem give it five years and you''ll be eating your words. Sweden was the only country not ravaged by the Nazi in WW2 and this left them in a unique position to thrive in the postww2 world but that time is coming to an end as all Swedish econmic indicators are showing
. Also the USA has the most patents filed per year of any country in the world.
ooshgasm 3 months ago
@ooshgasm You're full of ad hoc excuses. Sweden isn't the only economy that is doing well (at least compared to the US). Germany itself has an extensive welfare state, but was obliterated in the course of WWII, and half of it was a Soviet satellite up until two decades ago. Incomes have continued to rise in Germany, whereas they've been stagnant in the US since the 80's for about 90% of the population. Also, all the Scandinavian nations are doing about as well as Sweden.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@ooshgasm Its the "free-market" (in the right-wing sense) nations like Latvia and Estonia that totally collapsed (as in 20% unemployment and incomes slashed by ~40%) after the crisis. Also, there's no reason to believe any of the Scandinavian nations have a disaster looming. The biggest threat to Sweden's economy is the US- if it creates another global economic crisis.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@ooshgasm And the fact that the US files more patents (many of them by vulture companies and patent hoarders) just points to the fact that the US is big. Its also a fact that China files more patents than Lichenstein, but that doesn't mean the Chinese have better lives than those living in Lichtenstein. Sweden has the most business startups *per capita* in the world, that is an index that matters.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@MRBLACKPEARL04 Not that merely growing the government is good in and of itself- government is a means to an end, a tool. Used well, the government will fix a self-destructive private-sector.
spartan2600 3 months ago
Trickle down greed...
beckpod1 3 months ago
Webster Tarpley 5 point program to get out of great depression is the plan America needs. American does not need Republicans including Ron Paul who propose plans that are exact copy of IMF/World Bank structural adjustment program and shock therapy.
America needs something like New Deal. America needs job creation by Infrastructure and Industrial development. America needs regulation of economy like reinstating of Glass Steagell act. America needs a wall street transaction tax.
kkbose 3 months ago
Wait, how does getting rid of unions equate to getting rid of government? Unions are just trade associations for workers, totally consistent with the free market. It is true that SOME (not most) unions do benefit from government spending and regulation, and those benefits should be taken away, but there's no reason to assume that unions would be weaker in a free market.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax It depends what you mean by "free." Many on the right think free means allowing rich people exploit their power to control other people. My idea of freedom is that the wealthy can't infringe on the rights of everyone else. For example, it should be illegal for employers to propagandize their workers with anti-union literature, as they are allowed to do in the US (it used to be illegal until Taft-Hartley).
spartan2600 3 months ago
@QuatFax If you have a right-wing concept of "free" and "free market," (like Ron Paul or George Bush) then unions would certainly be obliterated by employers if such ideas were imposed. Employers have an unfair advantage- they own all the capital- the factories, mines, shipyards, stores, railways, etc. Real freedom means evening the playing field.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 See, I disagree. I don't believe the government should stop employers from propagandizing their workers or anything like that (not that employers should do that). Unions could easily form without any restrictions on what employers can do. The problem is that government has strengthened the hands of employers relative to labour. First, they've made many of the most effective union tactics illegal, and second, government regulation and subsidies encourage concentration of capital.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax What you fail to recognize is that there is not a symmetry of power between bosses and workers. Given a system in which a tiny economic elite own the means of production, the mass of workers begin at a disadvantage before we even consider the ways government affects the equation. Here's a simple illustration- bosses can easily propagandize workers against their will since bosses can fire workers. However, workers cannot propagandize their bosses in any way.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 But you are assuming that a tiny economic elite would control the means of production without government support, and that is one hell of an assumption. Concentration of capital has always followed government intervention in the market, from the Enclosures to mercantilism to the modern-day highway and military complexes. That's not to say there can't be concentration of capital under a free market, but it would be far more difficult to achieve and far flimsier.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax Capitalists require the government to protect them. As soon as government were to dissappear, all the rich people's mansions and businesses would be sacked. It is simply irrational for one group of people to make billions of dollars they didn't earn, while everyone else toils and never make what they earn.
spartan2600 2 months ago
@spartan2600 "Capitalists require the government to protect them"
EXACTLY! Capitalism (if we define it as an economic system ruled by those who control capital) is NOT consistent with the free market. If not for the government, capitalists could NEVER manipulate the economy as they do. Only government policy allows these huge corporations and their owners and managers to plow over the working class.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax Sorry for the late reply, but government is a tool. It is currently used to accelerate the concentration of wealth/capital, but that is not its only use. In fact, many things, like unemployment, homelessness, lack of healthcare and education can only be solved collectively, not through piddly charities or through profit-driven enterprises. Government is the only collective tool we have at the moment that could fix those issues.
spartan2600 1 month ago
@spartan2600 Government is inherently a tool of the wealthy; it cannot be effectively used to help the poor. The nature of government is to take small plunders from the masses and hand them over to individuals; the masses are far less likely to notice their small losses than the rich are to notice their large gains. If government spent money on the masses, however, it would have to take every cent that it doles out, so the masses would be no better off overall.
QuatFax 1 month ago
@spartan2600 In addition to government's inability to help the masses, it is also impossible for the masses to effectively monitor government. The costs of watching and evaluating each politician, and then campaigning against each one that doesn't live up to expectations, is incredibly high. The rich can do this because they can hire lobbyists, but the poor and middle classes haven't the time or the money to exert any real influence on government.
QuatFax 1 month ago
@QuatFax Saying we need to toss out most, but not all of government but leave in place capitalism and business is a recipe for capitalist tyranny and profit-driven privation for most of us.
The hammer of government is being used to smash in windows. That doesn't mean we destroy all hammers since we cannot repair those windows or build new houses without hammers.
spartan2600 1 month ago
@spartan2600 I'm actually saying we should toss out ALL government.
See, the problem is that government, unlike a hammer, is inherently immoral, because it relies on the initiation of the use of force. You would not say that rape is sometimes immoral, but can be used for good things; rape is always wrong, and the use of government is always wrong.
QuatFax 1 month ago
@QuatFax There really is no such thing as a "free market." You admit there would still be inequalities under a free market. Well, those wealthy few who find themselves at the center of a concentration of power will impose their own rules and regulations. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out- they'll just do what is in their own greedy self-interest. Playing fair is bad for profits. Anyways, businesses already manipulate and coerce eachother, even where governments stay hands-off.
spartan2600 2 months ago
@spartan2600 I admit there would be inequalities, but nothing on the scale necessary to reestablish the state and regulate their competitors. And businesses cannot, by definition, coerce their competitors in the free market; if people are being coerced, there isn't a free market (the free market is defined as an economy without coercion). Businesses could manipulate each other, but if a business gets a reputation for fraud, it's hardly going to make any sales.
QuatFax 2 months ago
@QuatFax "if people are being coerced, there isn't a free market (the free market is defined as an economy without coercion)"
That is a tautology.
spartan2600 1 month ago
@spartan2600 No it isn't; it's just a definition. If I say "Plato is the author of The Republic" and then restate it in another manner (such as "Plato wrote The Republic"), that isn't a tautology; I'm just stating it differently to make sure it is understood.
QuatFax 1 month ago
@QuatFax Therefore, government is needed to balance this imbalance of power. You are right to say that government has, especially in the US, illegalized the best tactics labor have, but again what you fail to realize is that the reason wild-cat strikes are illegal is because bosses begin with unfair advantages, they control the factories, but they also buy the election, control the mass media, write the school textbooks and they have bigger incomes and budgets than even the biggest unions.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 "You are right to say that government has, especially in the US, illegalized the best tactics labor have..."
So, you are aware that the US is only democratic in name and theory?
"Government is a tool"
Yes, and the quality and virtue of that tool is determined both by WHAT that tool is (which particular system of government) and HOW it is used in practice (how closely it adheres to and validates the pure theory, or deviates from it and discredits itself).
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@spartan2600 And yet, in spite of all those larger budgets and incomes, the bosses could not deal with secondary strikes or boycotts. That's why they made them illegal; if they could deal with them in a free market, they wouldn't NEED the government to make them illegal. My point is to simply establish a free market, where the government doesn't do ANYTHING, and the bosses will quickly fall to sympathy strikes and boycotts.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax Also, many government regulations and other laws *excacerbate* concentration of capital, but there was always a concentration of capital even before those laws were passed. Government is a tool, it can be wielded by the rich to make the rich richer, or the workers can fight back and make a level playing field, or better yet, get rid of the rich bums.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 Government has never been wielded effectively by the poor. The nature of the state is to establish an elite. The state, by definition, monopolizes and concentrates the use of physical force; in any such system, those most likely to abuse their power are most likely to rise to the top. The state can only ever change the makeup of the elite; it cannot abolish the elite and empower the lower classes.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@26libertarian Ha! I love people like you, "free market capitalist or state capitalist". I truly wish for Ron Paul to be elected in your country, this would be fantastic!
noprofitmaximierung 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noprofitmaximierung " I truly wish for Ron Paul to be elected".. me too, but I doubt it, mass media continues to marginalize Ron Paul, he not the bankers' kinda man. So the looting, the frauds, the lies, the corruption will continue,.... till the music stops! Peace 2u
JanRichardus 3 months ago
smaller government creates more feedom.
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago 2
@joshua1auhsoj Small government meants a privatized government. That is not more freedom. That is less. That is more freedom for the wealthy. More for Wallstreet, Koch brothers, Bankers, ect. That is not more freedom for the average person.
captcrais101 3 months ago
@captcrais101
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy, also a George Washington quote
captcrais101 3 months ago
@captcrais101 "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases "- Thomas Jefferson
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. " -Benjamin Franklin
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
Comment removed
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas jefferson
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases "- Thomas Jefferson
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj The only area that takes away freedom as government grows is with the growth of big brother. We have too much survailance and the police have become stormtroopers. But Government regulationg the private sector or government helping the people must be made bigger since we need to get big money out of it.
captcrais101 3 months ago
@josha1auhsoi That quote was not Jefferson. That was Gerald Ford.
ridgidforu com/forum/t23006/
captcrais101 3 months ago
@captcrais101 a wonderful quote either way.
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
@captcrais101 the constitution was written very precicly, to restrain the power and force of government and to protect the liberties of each and every one of us.
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj White landowning males
The constitution wasn't close to perfect and was MEANT to be changed over time for our general welfare
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn
NO NO NO, If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to AMEND IT.
A "living" Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they've simply misunderstood: the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times. A living Constitution is a dead Constitution.
joshua1auhsoj 2 months ago
@LeonHard5 No one is popularising State Capitalism, we are talking about having democracy not only outside the economy, but also AT the Workplace. If the workers could decide if the capital that they produce needs to go to feed themselves and not go to the company's profits, if there were true Socialism, then we would not have 1 Billion humans Permanently severly undernourished by capitalist unemployment and extortion, get it?
noprofitmaximierung 3 months ago
If they cut the payroll tax, they are going to have to make up for that in other ways. I say increase the payroll tax on executive bonuses, and pay for the cuts in payroll taxes with that money.
dangerouslytalented 3 months ago
@student507 So you want to keep going on with this antidemocratic organisation of the distribution of surplus value? Would it not be a lot more "free" market if we had democracy at the workplace, so that the 3 billion humans that earn less than $2 a day, could decide if they need to feed their family from their production, not give it to the boss? If you Capitalists have not noticed, Your profit maximizing overproduction and forced overconsumption is destroying not only the workers of this worl
noprofitmaximierung 3 months ago
@noprofitmaximierung the ones living on $2/day are making enough for themselves
it sounds shitty to us because we make $58/day
but it costs us a hell of a lot more.
obviously the cost of living is much lower there. it's a ridiculous argument.
capitalism is cool because the people are being paid to work. communism is cool because the workers own the means of production.
however, since they are capitalist, I disagree with the humans "decide" not to "give it" to the boss.
he's paying them for it!
darris321 3 months ago
Do not popularize socialism!!! We in Europe have enough experience to share. Less goverment, less regulations! Goverment is not smart to deside what is good and what is bad. Let people to decide, you stupid. Read some history and economy books... before sharing crap..
LeonHard5 3 months ago
@LeonHard5 When Govt rules and dictates, it's socialism period: must have insurance, must have id, compulsory school attendance, food stamp programs, minimum wage laws, must have licenses, permits and registrations, subsidies to corporations etc.etc. Obey, Submit and shut up or else. All ism's stink!
JanRichardus 3 months ago
@JanRichardus
"When Govt rules and dictates, it's socialism period"
Ahh, I remember when I was 13.
newdimensionfilms 3 months ago
@JanRichardus I would call you a nihilist, but that's an ism too. You're too nihilist for nihilism.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 At least you are thinking for yourself. Cheers!
JanRichardus 3 months ago
@JanRichardus "When Govt rules and dictates, it's socialism period:" Thats too simplistic.
"All ism's stink!" couldn't agree more.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@LeonHard5 You europeans don't go bankrupt from medical bills
You have lower per capita healthcare costs
Stop being an ungrateful little bitch when people have to mortgage their homes for an overpriced operation
dffykvn 3 months ago
The smaller the government, the less crony capitalism, the less revolving door between private & public entities, the less special interest, the less corporate welfare, the greater the separation between corporation & state.
But only government can do massive expensive projects like the Hoover dam, highways & things like that.
VexZeed 3 months ago
Neither small nor big government "creates" jobs that lead to growth. The jobs they create are short term stimulate to the public or necessary roles in the government itself.
The difference between the two is, small government, i.e. efficient government, does not sap the public for funds to justify the existence of redundant or useless departments, and more money stays in the hands of the people.
And austerity leads to stagnation, we need a new economic model, one not based on perpetual growth.
chocomalk 3 months ago
governments cannot create jobs, as their only tool is to use violence to force people... jobs are created by mutual trade of products/services etc.. not by state violence.
djdnauk1977 3 months ago
@djdnauk1977 I don't accept your definition of violence.
Those definitions are exclusive to libertarian circles because no normal person can call paying taxes "violence" with a straight face
If you don't want to pay taxes you have enough time to leave and go to some african country with all of your money that was transferred to an offshore bank
If you don't want to pay your part in maintaining society then move the fuck out!
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn "Those definitions are exclusive to libertarian circles because..."
*Right* libertarian circles. I'll remind you that the first people to use the word "libertarian" were communists, anarchists and socialists. "Libertarian" is still a synonym for "anarchist" in the non-English-speaking world, especially in Greece or Spain, and it used to be the same in America before Objectivists and others hijacked the term roughly 50 years ago.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 Well the term "liberal" is derived from nineteenth century England and meant maximum freedom for individuals to pursue their self interest with minimum govt. intervention in ANY way. This means economically as well as politically. Terms get hijacked all the time.
ooshgasm 3 months ago
@ooshgasm 19th century "liberals" weren't against govt. intervention "in any way." They were against the power of forces alien and removed from the individual- that includes governments and private businesses alike. However, in 1800 private ventures didn't have any significant power compared to the state, so classical liberals spent their time criticizing the state, but the same criticisms would apply to businesses even more so.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@ooshgasm After all, governments are *potentially* democratic. Businesses are private tyrannies by their very nature. One of the first and most important Classical Liberals was Otto Von Humboldt. He wrote in 1792 that state intervention in social life is legitimate "if freedom would destroy the very conditions without which not only freedom but even existence itself would be inconceivable", which are precisely the circumstances that arise in an unconstrained capitalist economy.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 This supposedly "unconstrained capitalist economy" exists in this supposedly "democratic" govt...
What is the value in democracy about? Mob rule is lame. Power in numbers is a logical fallacy. The majority of people can choose the morally wrong choice at the expense of minority groups. Furthermore, the majority aka the mob can be persuaded to choose a morally wrong choice, at their own expense, for superficial rewards and instant gratification, by the elites in both bzns and govt.
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@dawimythnotolo Your Lenin-like and cynical hatred of democracy and the mass of the people, the "mob" as you call them, is disgusting. The history of oppression is the history of powerful minorities exploiting weak majorities- bosses exploiting workers, slavemasters exploiting slaves, a few thousand Europeans colonizing and enslaving millions of Indians, Africans, Aborigines, and so on. Democracy and equality are not oppressive, they are the solutions to oppression.
spartan2600 3 months ago
@spartan2600 You clearly have no idea what principles the US was founded on, and what government the US is SUPPOSED to have.
US Govt - Democratic REPUBLIC, in which we elect officials that then make decisions
It is distinguished from a DIRECT DEMOCRACY in that we, the people do NOT vote on the actual decisions made, but on who makes the decisions. Direct democracy was seen as perilous by the founders in that it allowed a majority, THE MOB, the potential to oppress MINORITY GROUPS.
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@spartan2600 The GOAL they were trying to achieve by establishing a democratic REPUBLIC was to ensure that ALL people's rights were protected, not just the majority nor just the minority, but ALL PEOPLE, which by definition is the ABSENCE of OPPRESSION. The reason I say TRYING is because the goal was not achieved. For whatever reasons the democratic Republic devolved into corporatism while maintaining the FACADE. This is why we get the kind of confusion on the issue you exhibited...
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@spartan2600 And lastly, since your either blatantly trolling or completely confused on what my position is...
I believe in the virtue of small government and an ACTUALLY FREE MARKET. In other words, the POLAR OPPOSITE of what Lenin stood for...
Also, according to wikipedia: In practice countries which describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections.
Which should give you some insight on the reality in the US...
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@spartan2600 In Theory: John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing reps who legislate within the limits of constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@spartan2600 Well the rich have done a good job, I can't see libertarianism as anything other than a bunch of rich people becoming a new form of lord of the manor
dffykvn 3 months ago 2
@dffykvn Libertarians are to conservatives, what intelligent design is to creationism. Libertarians enjoy posturing themselves as being above it all, somehow.
Today's "libertarians" have created an idolatry of personal and family wealth as the fundamental sacrament of economics. A far cry from Adam Smith.
nycic 3 months ago
@nycic Adam smith believed that a public sphere was necessary for the public good and believed in regulation
He was a time travelling stalin if you ask me! Mirite glenn beck?
Ps did you know thomas paine, the guy that the teatards seemingly love wrote about how land shouldn't be privately owned and if it is privately owned the owners should pay back the people for being allowed to keep using it
You won't hear about that in tea-tardia
dffykvn 3 months ago 2
@dffykvn One must ask oneself:
If libertarianism would really benefit the corporate class, why aren't the 1% all libertarians?
Because big business loves big government.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago 6
@graaaaaagh Obviously you haven't had a wealthy douchebag of a boss that handed out ayn rand novels for christmas
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn LArry Sommers, the former private bank chief Alan Greenspan, Peter Schiff, Geihtner, Bernanke are all lbertarians who don't want any regulation whatsoecer.
LouieDaProtectionist 3 months ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Exactly
Thank you!
There's another video where a guy told me how awesome china is for having no environmental and labor regulations and that's why businesses are flocking there
When I brought up the cancer villages and suicide netting at foxconn he called me a conspiracy nut
These retards have no connection to the real world or just hate the poor so much that they get off on fucking them over with their neu feudal nightmare
dffykvn 3 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn Watch Real Footage Of Real Banks Causing real Problems
Watch “How To Rob A Bank” at UmotionS.com.
See the trailer at my channel with the link in it’s description.
DedmanUmotionS 3 months ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Ps
ww (w.y) outub (e.c) om/watch?v=92UxKyg5UMc&lc=FEMzhAF-zImhHxyHYze677irI3CkIBOSygOZUMh4Kk8&feature=inbox
Check out my conversation with "theuser101"
It's amazing how he can deny reality and contradict himself and keep on going
I guess he must REALLY hate poor people -_-
dffykvn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LouieDaProtectionist "LArry Sommers, the former private bank chief Alan Greenspan, Peter Schiff, Geihtner, Bernanke are all lbertarians who don't want any regulation whatsoecer."
What ever you're smoking must be some good shit.... First, how can you put Schiff in the same list as the "brilliant" larry summers or Bernanke... Secondly, how are any one of them libertarian. The smoke must destroy brain cells too apparently. Define Libertarian.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid Greenspan believe being hands off and not bursting the housing bubble when it could have been manageable would be the right move
He might have been running things, but he made sure he was as hands off as possible "no no don't do anything, markets always correct themselves"
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn Greenspan wasn't as hands off you might think . He routinely manipulated interests, which artificially stimulates or slows the economy. DOT com and housing bubble anyone? He didn't necessarily follow Ayn Rands economic philosophies.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid He could have burst the housing bubble prematurely, he could have done his job and prevented a catastrophuck, but he didn't.
He might have done a LITTLE but otherwise he was hands off
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn How can you say that someone who manipulates INTEREST RATES and the nation's money supply as having a little role( hands off) in the economy? With his manipulation in the markets via interest rates and other FED schemes, he produced an environment that enabled these bubbles to form in the first place. What do you think happens when you force rates down for too long?
There would not have been a housing bubble with the funds to fuel it. Congress can legislate all it wants.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid "There would not have been a housing bubble with the funds to fuel it. Congress can legislate all it wants." replace the 'without' where with is for correction.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
I kind of like how everyones criticizing him now
When the housing bubble was forming and everyone was praising "the maestro" the people that wanted him to burst the bubble were called loons and "interventionists"
Now that the bubbles burst the fallouts blamed on intervention by the same high lords of finance that gave him accolades
If you want to include interest rates, alright, but his refusal to hold banks accountable for crimes and routinely breaking regs played a bigger part (in my eyes)
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn "I kind of like how everyones criticizing him now" just people who don't know anything about the business cycle and the effects of monetary policy.
"If you want to include interest rates, alright, but his refusal to hold banks accountable for crimes and routinely breaking regs played a bigger part (in my eyes)" While i see your point, i don't think it is the FED's mandate to regulate banks. That's congress. They destroyed Glass-Stegall with the help of the banking sector.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid Part 2
To me refusing to make banks follow regulations qualifies him for the laissez faire whether he did anything with interest rates or not
He allowed banks violate any rule they wanted and that permissive attitude showed everywhere from giving subprime loans to people who qualified for fixed rates, to the obscene bonuses and how they bullshitted congress
If you want to call him hands on, I'd agree ... that he used kids gloves and only feebly pushed
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn "To me refusing to make banks follow regulations qualifies him for the laissez faire whether he did anything with interest rates or not"
That's not what laissez faire is. A Laissez Faire approach would have been to allow the markets to set interest rates and dictate the amount of money in circulation. He didn't do this. he purposely manipulate the markets.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@dffykvn "He allowed banks violate any rule they wanted and that permissive attitude showed everywhere from giving subprime loans to people who qualified for fixed rates, to the obscene bonuses and how they bullshitted congress" Entities like the SEC were relaxed with regulation enforcement. The Greenspan provided the excess credit to fuel wall streets gambling, bad investments and usage of derivatives. Wall street and the banking sector in turn influenced congress to weaken regulation.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid Isn't glass steagall just one of those regulations that the evil government uses to oppress the heroic galts of the banking sector?
Sorry I had to get that dig in :P
There were boom and busts before the fed there are boom and busts during the fed and would be boom and busts after the fed
Post New Deal we had a stable market with few (I'm pretty sure there weren't ANY busts) until banks started getting deregulated and we had bust after bust after bust
dffykvn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn "If you want to call him hands on, I'd agree ... that he used kids gloves and only feebly pushed"
I am still lost as to how you can say he used gloves or kids gloves for that matter. He, and now Bernanke, has pumped trillions of dollars of credit into the markets. These people literally control the US economy through its money supply. They can influence the unemployment rate just by raising reserve ratios and buy up assets.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@dffykvn Ah, yes. The classic argument of "capitalism sucks because AYN RAND"
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh No the objectivist philosophy sucks because it was written by a sociopath that glorified sociopaths because she was in love with a sociopath
Capitalism needs laws and rules, either you can have a government make capitalism work for the people, or you can keep the people from getting involved and let it get more and more industry friendly until it can steamroll people
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn Laws and rules emerge in society. The government extracts resources from the people whether they like it or not, so it cannot accurately represent them.
A voluntary organization is entirely accountable to the people, because it's up to the people whether it stays in business. People who want an "unregulated" market want REAL regulation - that of the people, not that of the state, which is monocentric and has no incentive to do any good. A sound legal order has to be polycentric.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh No it doesn't, that's just a reversion to the feudal system with the wealthy as the new lords of the manor and nobility.
This guy does a better job of debunking your neufeudal bullshit than I could possibly hope to
ww (w.y) outub (e.c) om/watch?v=b3KEr-k2u58&feature=channel_video_title
dffykvn 3 months ago
@dffykvn This guy does a better job of seeming intelligent than that guy:
ozarki(a.n)et/bill/anarchism/library/The_Nature_of_Law/The_Nature_of_Law.html
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@dffykvn I rather live in a society with polycentric law, where my group, with its laws can hold financial predators responsible for their crimes against economies and the people that depend on these economies. The guy you cited that you claimed would "debunk" libertarianism only served to debunk the current system. He says polycentric law, still exists but in this case, assisted by the POWER of the STATE, the multiple standards of law are ALWAYS STACKED against the lower socio-economic classes.
dawimythnotolo 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh the 1% are all libertarians. libertarians that aren't in the 1% are just dumb.
LouieDaProtectionist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LouieDaProtectionist "the 1% are all libertarians. libertarians that aren't in the 1% are just dumb."
Proof?
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh Agreed. What knuckle draggers fail to realize is that a highly invasive government is easier to be influenced or hijacked by big business, special interest and not to mention corporate welfare queens. They also fail to understand the concept of CORPORATISM and how it thrives in big government environments.
Xenthoid 3 months ago
@Xenthoid It's insane that people think an institution we're FORCED TO PAY FOR is somehow more "accountable to the people" than any sort of business.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh Big business doesn't care what size government is, so long as they're de-regulating for them.
If big government gives them de-regulation - good! If small government gives them de-regulation - even better!
They want us to stay in a duality arguement of small vs big government, so they can continue working behind the scenes: de-regulating, de-regulating, de-regulating!
yo1dude1man 3 months ago
@yo1dude1man "De-regulation" while the companies themselves are still established by the state is hopeless. The government is what gives corporations their power.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh And its the People that give government their power. Why has everyone lost sight that those in office are ONLY administators/servants to the real government? The People! We the People MUST hold govt administators accountable for their actions & improper goverance? This current Recession & its origin can be pointed to 1 piece legislation: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, pushed through by 3 Republicans [see names], signed by Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton.
It deregulated GLASS-STEAGALL Act
yo1dude1man 3 months ago
@yo1dude1man Glass-Steagall, all it did was separate investment banks and commercial banks. The removal of that limit is not what caused the recession.
Accountable government is a pipe dream, but it'd help to get rid of the Fed and the IRS, and legalize competing currencies like the Liberty Dollar so there's sound money. The people at the top are pushing for war in order to further zombify the dollar.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh Really? You honestly believe that? You obviously haven't done your homework!
1.5 Trillion that we absorbed into our deficit is from all the bad mortgage notes [again only mortgage notes!]
The other 10.5 Trillion we absorbed is all the collateralized derivatives and collateralized default swaps that were created on the back of those bad mortgage notes by Wall Street, Goldman Sacs, JP Morgan, etc, etc..
And if Glass-Steagall was still in place - THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED!
yo1dude1man 3 months ago
@yo1dude1man Dude, your argument is a non-sequitur.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh "Why aren't 1% all libertarians?"
Because not all corps are property barons, private prisons, oil, big banks etc. with $ for rant lobbies.
Most companies are more concerned with standards than myopic profiteering, however they get pushed out by GOP's' right 'libertarian' greed cult.
Greenspan (right 'libertarian') deregulation allowed banks to merge into mega corps remember.
Right 'libertarians', deflected anti-war for Bush, theological levels of BS, it's how bankers scam too.
marsCubed 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh
Precisely. Capitalism isn't the problem. We don't have capitalism. We have cronyism.
Big agra writes the food laws. Big pharma sets the agenda in "health". Big oil does whatever it likes.
The arms industry spreads fear and hate to promote endless wars....
Real businesses are starved of cash as big banks create the next bubble.....
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate ready, willing and capable of bringing about a real change to this terrible system.
Peace ;-)
sirshaneyboy 3 months ago
@sirshaneyboy
Ron Paul wants IMF/world bank Structural adjustment plan and shock therapy on American economy. Just go to wikipedia and check IMF structural adjustment.
kkbose 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@kkbose
Ron Paul would not involve any global institution like the IMF in his administration.
Cutting $1 trillion from the budget in his first year will start putting the US back on the right track.
Returning the power of the purse to Congress and removing it from the privately-controlled "Federal Reserve" would also remove a main cause of the nation's problems.
End the Wars!
End the Fed!
Restore the Republic!
Peace ;-)
sirshaneyboy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sirshaneyboy Watch Real Footage Of Real Banks Causing real Problems
Watch “How To Rob A Bank” at UmotionS.com.
See the trailer at my channel with the link in it’s description.
DedmanUmotionS 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh
US government has no control over its Monetary policy, trade policy and financial markets. How can you call it a "big government"? If US had big government, Federal reserve would be under Congress, Financial markets would be under tight regulatory control. There would be no WTO and free trade agreements. US actually has very small government which does not have control over its economy.
Stop repeating hollow statements of Ron Paul and start thing on your own.
kkbose 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@kkbose LMAO how do you think these financial institutions even exist? If you think the US has a "very small government" you're not even worth talking to.
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@graaaaaagh Watch Real Footage Of Real Banks Causing real Problems
Watch “How To Rob A Bank” at UmotionS.com.
See the trailer at my channel with the link in it’s description.
DedmanUmotionS 3 months ago
@graaaaaagh One must ask oneself:
Why do libertarians pretend to be independents when the majority have voted for the Republican ticket no matter who is on it for decades?
If libertarianism is viable, why have they never even come remotely close to running the white house?
Can the state gov oppress you just as much as the fed gov? (YES)
If the market "self-regulates" why have we been having problems with monopolies since standard oil in the 1900's!?
Because Libertarians are a joke.
bigge525 3 months ago
@bigge525 If libertarianism is viable, why have they never even come remotely close to running the white house?
by this analogy, democrats and republicans must be the best solution to the problems that they've created in the first place
zephyrsimon 3 months ago
@zephyrsimon Actually, real independents might be a viable solution instead of people inside the Republican party pretending to be independents when the majority have voted the GOP ticket (and still will) no matter who's on it for decades...
bigge525 3 months ago
@bigge525
Libertarians don't all vote, or simply want "stronger state government", and if a chance of "running the white house" is your litmus test of how valid an idea is, you're severely deluded.
Try reading Tom Woods instead of Paul Krugman.
What this comes down to is whether I should be forced to pay for what the state does. Do you want to use force against me, or not?
graaaaaagh 3 months ago
@dffykvn theres nothing to accept, its a fact... dont want to pay for a war? refuse to pay taxes & you will be violently thrown into a cage or beaten/shot for resisting... what you believe has no affect on the reality of state violence.
what you said is like saying "dont like rape, move somewhere it isnt morally accepted" its makes no sense, if you care about people in the slightest
djdnauk1977 2 months ago
@djdnauk1977 You're equating paying taxes with getting raped?
Shut the fuck up.
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn im equating state violence with any violence, many men get raped in jail or beaten or worse... no need to act immature... how do you think people are forced to pay taxes that fund wars etc??? they dont ask nicely lol
djdnauk1977 2 months ago
@djdnauk1977 I dare you (on the day you file taxes) to go to a place where cops are trying to help a woman they found in an alley with her panties torn off and cum all over her
Go up to them, tell the cops you're there to counsel her
Go to her and tell her "I know exactly how you feel, I feel your pain....I just filed my income taxes"
She'll certainly stop crying...then get arrested for beating you to death
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn what are you talking about? thats like me saying go tell that to an iraqi family whose family were blown up in front of them & whose child is deformed from depleted uranium used there by US/UN troops etc... im not blaming you, im saying government are a monopoly allowed to take money by force, theyre bound to kill & be corrupt, its a free money pit... no one is accountable, there no competition, their only tool is violence.
djdnauk1977 2 months ago
Stupidest title ever.
No one wants "jobs" per-se, toil is a negative by definition.
What we want is material wealth.
Fucking morons. The species is doomed. Good riddance.
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
What kind of reporting is this PAUL? Let's see this idiot guest of yours take on someone who can actually explain and defend the opposite position. How about you have him argue Peter Schiff on this topic.
aratsky2 3 months ago