King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 09:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The Canadian health system is often referred to as “socialized” medicine, but it is actually a mix of private providers billing governments for publicly funded services.

So what you're saying is that single payer is not socialism. I concur. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
Libertarianism is outdated. We are much too interdependent in the modern world. Sorry but the days of Little House on the Prarie are long gone.

Playing chess with pigeons......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(27-12-2015 05:29 PM)JakSiemasz Wrote:  Libertarianism is outdated. We are much too interdependent in the modern world. Sorry but the days of Little House on the Prarie are long gone.

And having a state micro-manage everyone's life isn't outdated? Your way was tried for 5,000 years and it accomplished nothing. Libertarians (classic liberals) got a hand at things briefly and it immediately revolutionized the world.

Proof of this is I have asked repeatedly to name one country that is "too libertarian" (ie where the people have too much freedom to choose without threats of force to coerce them). Nobody's been able to name one. If you measure how close countries are to the libertarian ideal, and overlay that chart with life expectancy, income, etc., it's a straight line. The more closer a country gets to the libertarian ideal, the more people live long, healthy, happy, prosperous lives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 10:55 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(27-12-2015 10:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, you mean the same 0.01% that has already rigged the game so much in their favor that they netted 95% of the net wealth gains over the last two decades? The same 0.001% that makes up the wealthy elite that get paid orders of magnitude more than their average workers? Whereas in other more effectively regulated countries in Europe and Asia, the ratio is close to between ten or twenty to one; in the US, it's thousands to one.

I will show you how YOU (ie America left) CAUSE the very problems you're complaining about.

Start with monetary policy. Libertarians have been screaming for hundreds of years that a fiat currency concentrates all the wealth at the top. Thomas Jefferson explained it clearly. When you have a central bank that is free to print money, people think of the resulting inflation as being a rise in prices, when it's actually a decrease in the value of your money. If you there were $1000 in circulation and you have $10 and the central bank has $100, you have 1% of the money and they have 10%. If the central bank prints another $1000 and puts it in their pocket, now they have 55% of the wealth and you have 0.5%. When the federal reserve prints money, who do they give it to? To the normal, working class? Or to wall street? But it's more insidious. If you're Bill Gates, what portion of your wealth and income are denominated in dollars? Does he really have $80 billion in a savings account, or work for a fixed income? No, he has stuff (land, stocks, patents, etc.). So if the fed cuts the value of the $ in half, the loss is insignificant for him. But at the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum, the single-parent mom working 2 jobs just to survive and feed her kid, all of her wealth and income is in $. If the value of the $ is cut in half, she loses half her income and half her wealth.

While many factors effect inequality, for hundreds of years libertarians have been screaming this is one the biggest factors. And the data proves we were right all along. Inequality was high after WWII, but then the US signed Bretton Woods pegging the dollar to gold. From then on, inequality consistently got better, regardless of whether liberals or conservatives were in charge, the middle class grew. But this trend reversed precisely when then the pentagon papers came out and showed that America was loosing the vietnam war and it was costing way more than the government revealed. But Nixon had a dilemma because he couldn't make new gold, he couldn't print new dollars under a gold standard. He had to get the money from the American public in the form of taxes, and it would be political suicide to ask Americans to pay more taxes to fund a war they were losing. So he cancelled the gold standard to pay for Vïetnam by printing money. Of course, the people still paid, it's just that they paid with the stagflation of the 70's and not taxes, so they blamed Carter and never stopped to think that it was really a fiat currency. Ever since the US went fiat, whether liberals or conservatives are in charge, whether you have 70% tax rates like under Carter or 28% under Reagan, inequality has been getting worse and worse and the middle class wiped out.

And who is the biggest fan of a fiat currency? The very same lefties who complain about inequality. Remember what caused Ron Paul to quite medicine in the 70's and go into politics was the US switch to a fiat currency. He was screaming back in the 70's that this would result in inequality and push all the wealth to the top. And now look at your post. Were we libertarians right all along? Did it not happen exactly like we warned it would?

[Image: us-gini-index-from-1947.png]

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Plus the problem right now is that the government itself no longer represents the people or does what's in their best interests as it should, because private interests have undue influence in politics. Those who have more money get what they want 95% of the time, regardless of what the greater public at large desires.

Duh. And who advocates centralizing and concentrating all the power around a group of politicians in Washington? You guys are so slow. Don't you realize that more you centralize power, then the corporate interests can concentrate their effort on that small group in power. And the more power they have, the more corrupt they become. You keep praising Scandinavian countries, but they're successful precisely because they do the exact opposite of what the Americans who praise them advocate. They shift power to the local level, where the people can keep a better eye on their politicians and make sure they're representing their interests, and the power is decentralized and dispersed and thus harder to corrupt.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, you mean the same 0.01% that has already rigged the game so much in their favor that they netted 95% of the net wealth gains over the last two decades?

Yes, and YOU GUYS ARE CAUSING IT because you haven't through what you're doing. You just see that some people have more money than you and give all the power to the politicians to redistribute the wealth oblivious to the fact that they're going to redistribute it to the people who fund their campaigns.

I've given 2 obvious examples of this stupidity:

Martin Shkreli: Hillary blasts him for raising the cost of a drug to $750/pill, and blames the free market and says the solution is more government control. But, wait, that same pill is available from a factory in the UK for only 66 cents/pill. This can't happen in a free market because Martin couldn't sell a single pill at $750 if people were given the choice of purchasing it for 66 cents from someone else. So why can't people just import it from the UK? Precisely because of the government intervention she advocates. The government/FDA tells people what they can consume and who they can buy it from, and they gave Martin Shkreli a monopoly in the US market. And Hillary wants to fix the problem by giving the government even more control.

Poverty trap: We keep screaming that if you want high taxes you have to look at the Scandinavian model and see why they determined you can't have highly progressive taxes and benefits tied to income because as you turn up the progressiveness, you make the mountain steeper to climb. For example, in the US, if you make between $10k and $40k per year, 82% of the next dollar you earn goes to the government both in new taxes and elimination of benefits. And if you live at the poverty level, this exceeds 100%, so that if your boss offers you the option of working overtime and you work longer to earn more, you will actually have LESS money to live off. Since they're already barely surviving, they simply cannot afford to work more, and are stuck in a poverty trap. I presented all this a couple years ago in this thread and I challenge you to find where any liberals can present a coherent defense of this absurd system.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As of right now, wealth is being redistributed from the lower and middle class and into the hands of the people who already have more than they could ever need.

Yes, please stop doing it.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We're suffering the worst wealth inequality in history, worse even than the Gilded Age that predated the Great Depression.

Yes, we know you've been very effective at it.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is, therefore, an oligarchy; which is about as far as you can get from effective socialism.

Please the only countries that claimed to be truly socialist were the soviet/east countries, and recently Cuba and N. Korea. In all cases they are the most oligarchal. Again, you're advocating a system that advances that which you're complaining about.

Hey asshole! Go fuck yourself. I'm done with you, because you cannot be bothered to read what I've actually wrote. You're assuming all of my positions based upon a single word or label, instead of actually responding to the ones I've put down myself. I don't fucking care about your masturbatory fantasy arguments with theoretical communism... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: