Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Remember when George Washington defeated the British by crashing the world economy?   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, world economy, House GOP  
•       •       •

3649 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2013 at 7:02 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-13 08:41:07 PM  
Although it seems the only verification I can find on this particular quote are other left-leaning echo chambers.  Anyone have an objective account of this?  Or is this another "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" work of fiction?
 
2013-10-13 08:42:38 PM  
Well, he is right if you think the world economy equals the british purse during the colonial period.  We like to think that the revolution was about us.  In fact it was part of a longer conflict between Britain and France around each others colonial expansions.  We just happened to be one of the colonies.  Some historians believe we didn't win the revolution because of guile or grit, but more because it was too damned expensive for the Brits to fight.
 
2013-10-13 08:42:45 PM  
My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.
 
2013-10-13 08:44:11 PM  

RyansPrivates: Well, he is right if you think the world economy equals the british purse during the colonial period.  We like to think that the revolution was about us.  In fact it was part of a longer conflict between Britain and France around each others colonial expansions.  We just happened to be one of the colonies.  Some historians believe we didn't win the revolution because of guile or grit, but more because it was too damned expensive for the Brits to fight.


Just to be clear, I think this guys is off his rocker, I was merely making a point about the American Revolution stretching the economy/purse of the British Crown.
 
2013-10-13 08:46:45 PM  
He told The Hill on Saturday that he is not concerned with the economic consequences so long as he and his party get their way.

Someone needs to give these guys the biatch-slapping they deserve. Or the cock-punching. I don't much care which.
 
2013-10-13 08:46:53 PM  

max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.


Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?
 
2013-10-13 08:48:55 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: And technically speaking, the Teatards are following the Constitution. Because there is no explicit order that says they CAN'T act like slobbering morons with issues of global importance.


Actually, the writers of the Constitution were not in favor of the uneducated having a voice in government. If you'll recall, only white male landowners were given the vote back then, or allowed to hold office, as this was an easy and efficient way of determining if one were educated. Women, non-landowners, and non-whites were very unlikely to have attended school, and so were unlikely to be able to understand the complex issues of government - see nearly any interview of random attendees of any kind of political rally even today.

As public education became standard, the landowning requirement was dropped, then the "whites only", and finally women were given the vote. Eventually the voting age was dropped to eighteen, mainly because this was the age at which many people were considered intelligent enough to die for their country, not because eighteen year olds were seen as being as intelligent as twenty-one, or in some cases twenty-five year old individuals.

The whole purpose of the electoral college was to serve as a check on the idiocy of the masses - the idea was that the electors would choose to not vote for the person who had won the popular vote if he or she were a complete buffoon, and instead vote for someone who was qualified.

So yes, I agree that the Constitution doesn't say that people can't act like slobbering morons, but the Constitution was designed with marginalizing such people in mind. Our tinkering with it through expanding the franchise (not that I disagree with expanding the franchise at all - we're all created equal) has had some unforeseen consequences in limiting our ability to keep idiots from doing idiotic things.
 
2013-10-13 08:50:08 PM  

Girl Sailor: My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.


Ebony Tower Elite?
 
2013-10-13 08:53:12 PM  

nubzers: max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.

Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?


The Executive can only spend money that has been authorized by congress.
 
2013-10-13 08:54:00 PM  
Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
 
2013-10-13 08:54:43 PM  
If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.
 
2013-10-13 08:55:23 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


So, literally every country? Neat.
 
2013-10-13 08:56:50 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


Spending by th government is essential to have a government. A stable society in which an economy can flourish requires a government.
 
2013-10-13 08:57:44 PM  

sirrerun: Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


Remember what Mr. Washington did to the Whiskey Rebellion?
 
2013-10-13 08:58:11 PM  

LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.


Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.
 
2013-10-13 08:58:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: He told The Hill on Saturday that he is not concerned with the economic consequences so long as he and his party get their way.

Someone needs to give these guys the biatch-slapping they deserve. Or the cock-punching. I don't much care which.


assets.diylol.com

 
2013-10-13 08:58:32 PM  
This is the result of 78 representatives from 30 states going full retard, about 18 percent of the nation's reps. Mostly older, white, less educated, fearful, religious folks who were raised to believe that deficits were bad and to fight for the flag, God and country were noble and all systems in which you don't pay for everything with cash were COMMUNISM.

Meanwhile, they reaped the benefits of public infrastructures and served in a military that gave them free medical care, food, travel, and pensions, and into their old age, VA health care benefits.

They don't even realize that they'll be the ones suffering the most, eventually.
 
2013-10-13 08:58:51 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.

Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Poe's Law in full effect
 
2013-10-13 08:59:00 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.

Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Examples please?  Countries with more than 80 million.
 
2013-10-13 08:59:09 PM  

max_pooper: nubzers: max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.

Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?

The Executive can only spend money that has been authorized by congress.


Ok. Sorry if I seem pretty ignorant, I'm in the middle of a double shift and kinda hungover.

/terrible idea to drink last night
 
2013-10-13 08:59:47 PM  

Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?


So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?
 
2013-10-13 09:02:22 PM  

LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?


I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.
 
2013-10-13 09:02:56 PM  

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.

Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.


Fallacy. You would want your economy to thrive at the expense of someone else's economy. It certainly has worked for China.

Where you do have many economies somewhat intertwined, and you have all these economies linked to the same anchor, you'd probably find that the economy who rises above and thrives is the one who didn't play the game. I think there is a precedent for that. The nation that thrived during the Great Depression wasn't participating in the 'world economy'. They were a self dependent economy.
 
2013-10-13 09:04:03 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.

Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.

Fallacy. You would want your economy to thrive at the expense of someone else's economy. It certainly has worked for China.

Where you do have many economies somewhat intertwined, and you have all these economies linked to the same anchor, you'd probably find that the economy who rises above and thrives is the one who didn't play the game. I think there is a precedent for that. The nation that thrived during the Great Depression wasn't participating in the 'world economy'. They were a self dependent economy.


I have no idea why you think anything you said refutes the inevitable global future.
 
2013-10-13 09:04:30 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Can you clarify what you mean here? Is "everyone with money" referring to French citizens, or citizens of other countries, or what? And what citizenship are they renouncing?

Also, could you clarify "socialist" or "totalitarian"? Looks to me like totalitarian regimes such as China are doing pretty well (as a country, although not as individual citizens), and more "socialist" countries like Sweden and Finland are doing quite well as a country, AND as individual citizens. The real trouble here seems to be the more purely capitalist countries, or those trying to move away from Post WW-II socialist policies, specifically France and the US.
 
2013-10-13 09:06:32 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: I agree with that.   Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded. Add no value get no reward.


What in the Holy and Blessed name of L. Ron Hubbard are you talking about?
 
2013-10-13 09:06:58 PM  
No worries. Obama can simply pay off the national debt with a platinum Krugman coin.
 
2013-10-13 09:07:17 PM  
The Republican Party is "in the last throes," .......
 
2013-10-13 09:08:52 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.



i42.tinypic.com

 
2013-10-13 09:10:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: bigsteve3OOO: I agree with that.   Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

What in the Holy and Blessed name of L. Ron Hubbard are you talking about?


Never mind. With the "no value, no reward" part, ol' bigsteve will be dead of starvation in a week.
 
2013-10-13 09:10:49 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Girl Sailor: My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.

Ebony Tower Elite?


Nice. Let's make that happen.

Btw - how do you know what's on the other side of schroedinger's glory hole?
 
2013-10-13 09:11:54 PM  
scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-10-13 09:13:50 PM  

KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]


That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.
 
2013-10-13 09:13:57 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.


Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?
 
2013-10-13 09:15:06 PM  

nubzers: I suppose, but making that kind of decision to basically rewrite the constitution in a fabricated crisis is dangerous. Especially considering its only a small minority forcing this issue.


I completely agree. It is unilateral and extremely disturbing as a precedent for a stable republic. But, I also believe that the Constitution was given an amendment process for a reason, and sometimes one must be revolutionary to avoid being revolution-y. Would I prefer that this option never needed exploring? Very much so. Do I think that since the nutters are forcing our hand that it needs to be dealt with? Absolutely. Needs of the many and all that.

ox45tallboy: So yes, I agree that the Constitution doesn't say that people can't act like slobbering morons, but the Constitution was designed with marginalizing such people in mind. Our tinkering with it through expanding the franchise (not that I disagree with expanding the franchise at all - we're all created equal) has had some unforeseen consequences in limiting our ability to keep idiots from doing idiotic things.


The biggest irony of the classical Constitutionalists is that they'd be absolutely disenfranchised if we went back to the original system. If you don't have a clear title to your land (or even to your home), you don't vote. Most of these folks are poor and either rent or are still making payments to the bank. The landed folk are wealthy or farmers.

One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.
 
2013-10-13 09:19:12 PM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?


No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.
 
2013-10-13 09:19:37 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If you don't have a clear title to your land (or even to your home), you don't vote.


So, Fred Thompson is killing the voting base with reverse mortgages? That's awesome!
 
2013-10-13 09:26:11 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites
 
2013-10-13 09:26:36 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers


Health insurance companies.  No value added.
 
2013-10-13 09:28:45 PM  

2wolves: bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers

Health insurance companies.  No value added.


Agreed.  If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers.  Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.  Dont give it to a middle man who adds no value.
 
2013-10-13 09:29:18 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?
 
2013-10-13 09:30:41 PM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites


Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.
 
2013-10-13 09:30:54 PM  
Washington was really big on destroying the fledgling economy of the colonies because he didn't like healthcare.  Wait what?
 
2013-10-13 09:34:13 PM  

Pharque-it: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?


A capitalist.  Not a corporatist like we have today.  crony capitalism is killing us all.  except the .01%  R or D your team is for them (0.01%)against you( all of us).
 
2013-10-13 09:34:28 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.


The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.
 
2013-10-13 09:34:50 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.


That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.
 
2013-10-13 09:36:26 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: 2wolves: bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers

Health insurance companies.  No value added.

Agreed.  If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers.  Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.  Dont give it to a middle man who adds no value.


Why not let private entities remain private, and hire private doctors, but simply be reimbursed by a Single Payer system instead of this weird system we have now?
 
2013-10-13 09:37:17 PM  

ox45tallboy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.

That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.


But one could sell shares of cooperative: one 5,000 square foot lot with 720,000 owners.
 
2013-10-13 09:38:59 PM  

ox45tallboy: That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.


I hadn't thought of that, so I will concede the point. But I will be damned if anyone thinks I'll halt the construction of my 100 story 1 square inch skyscraper.

I don't need FAA permits.
 
2013-10-13 09:39:27 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers. Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.


i43.tinypic.com

 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report