America's second bill of rights

[Demojen]

Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly. :roll:

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition. - Wikipedia

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2003/09/29/a-walmart-monopoly.aspx

I used the wrong term. More likely, Wal Mart is a Monopsony.

Monopsony: A market similar to a monopoly except that a large buyer not seller controls a large proportion of the market and drives the prices down. Sometimes referred to as the buyer's monopoly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/etc/synopsis.html

http://thewritingonthewal.net/?p=779

 

[Prolescum]

[showmore=Response to Arthur]

GM has a long, troubled history in the US. The latest twist is the Obama stimulus wherein the government bought out most of GM, but it's been stumbling and slowly failing under the parasitic grip of unions since the 70s.

Here's an example of being forced to hire unqualified workers:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/uaw-j12.shtml

They weren't given training because, much like the proposed entitlement to a job (which is mislabeled as a "right"), the point is not to actually have someone do the work. The point is to give the person money.

Oh Arthur... Linking an article to a couple of corrupt people in a union is not, as you put it:

Unions compelled General Motors to run that way...

This is an ilikemustard level argument.

Please show how The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation translates as businesses will be forced to give jobs to people regardless of things like how well the company was doing or how qualified people were to actually perform the job.

If you need further explanation as to how that's a bad way to run a business, I'll be happy to elaborate.

I'm sure you would, sir.

I understood it to be akin to a livable minimum wage guarantee.

Ugh... first of all, you don't really mean that. The amount of money required to keep a person alive (that is, a "livable" wage), feeding them 1200 calories a day and having them sleep at their work stations, is far less then what the minimum wage is in the US right now. I also expect if anyone tried this you'd cry out in horror. You mean something like a "fair" wage.

Yes. Busy week, mind in many places. Proles deserve a bit of sympathy...

Second, trying to mandate this is impossible. The biggest expense for most businesses is the cost of labor. (This excepts some socialist countries, where taxes are consistently a higher cost.) By raising the cost of labor by increasing the minimum wage, you increase the price of the goods that business sells. This is hardest on the people who have the greatest percentage of their income going to goods - that is, people earning minimum wage. At best everything breaks even and the people are no worse off, but that's not generally how it's gone when this has been tried.

Yes, but it's unlikely that FDR was suggesting its application without consideration of the overall impact.

Actually I agree with you about agricultural subsidies but I don't think that is what he meant by to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. In fact you could infer the exact opposite. No subsidies for anyone and an appropriate and relative price for all.
Certainly there's some room for interpretation as to what this means.

Once again, myth of the homesteader farmer. Without subsidies, a "family farm" would be even worse off as there's no way they could compete with the economies of scale of industrial farms. If you're supporting a family via direct payments; why? It's not like there's a shortage of food in America. At that point it would be easier and cheaper just to put them on standard welfare. Any interpretation of it is either pointless or harmful.

I'm going to ponder this one for a time, as it's led me down another avenue of thought I can't yet articulate.

Well unscrupulous businesses aside, the requirement that all new buildings have, for example, double glazing in this country has helped reduce the cost of heating the home, as has government subsidised insulation for older houses. I'd say a guarantee of protection from the elements is decent but concede that there would need to be a lot of discussion on what decent actually constitutes. Housing does last generations; is this not an investment?

There's room to argue on standards, sure. However, I think that should generally be left up to the person who actually has to live there and not some external force.

So is there room to argue on standards or should it generally be left up to the person who actually lives there and not some external force?

I don't follow. Could you expand on this process?

Let's say I'm a general contractor and I build some houses. I put them on the market for a price that will pay for the cost of materials, labor, and a decent profit for myself. (I have a family to support too, you know.) I get some offers for less then the cost, and I turn them down. Then a government official comes by and tells me that these people have a right to a home, and I cannot refuse them.

The FDR rights aren't in a vacuum.

See:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

The government official tells me that I must sell these houses to these people or I'll go to jail.

This is just making stuff up.

If he's feeling generous

and <!--add pithy remark about Americans here-->

the official might give me some money to cover the cost of the houses; but greedy capitalist pig that I am, I get no profit.

See above, above that, then further above.

Very droll. Some people cannot work due to their illness/disability, some people could not afford private pensions. Are you going to allow them to suffer because you were too stingy to cough up a few dollars a month and give them the dignity a fellow human being deserves?

First of all, "a few dollars a month"? Social welfare in the US is over half of the federal budget and is by far the biggest reason the federal deficit is so massive.

Tax the rich. Simple and elegant solution.
the

To forestall the most common objection; even if we completely eliminated the entire cost of the military and its operations there would still be a deficit.

If America stopped spending money on the military I'll never get to see the moon first-hand.

Entitlements (what all of these "rights" really are) get expensive very, very quickly. Over 20% of my pay goes to social welfare (quick estimate).

I agree that they are currently entitlements and that they are expensive. Neither of those is a convincing argument. FDR was proposing that they become rights.

The NHS in Britain costs billions, but I'll gladly pay my share to guarantee the health and wellbeing of my fellow countrymen. Of course, I don't mean I'm happy to throw money at it, efficiency, curtailing unnecessary bureaucracy etc should apply.

Don't try to lowball this.

Is this something to do with softball?

Second, you're unfairly demonizing me. Yes, I care about people. That's exactly why I believe in the positions I do; I feel they are the best way to help people. I believe that giving people greater control over their income and letting them make their own decisions will lead to better results then imposing judgements from a distant authority.

Arthur, we've had our moments, but I do respect your character. Not sure we'll ever agree on much, but you'd be fun at Sunday roast at the Jamaica Inn.

I will tell you that the subsidies and protectionism involved in entitling people to jobs and "fair" prices would go over very badly with other countries.

Is this if it was implemented today or when it was mooted originally?[/showmore]

I don't see the point of the what if scenario.

Then why are you in this thread? There's one with funny pictures somewhere that's fairly entertaining.

Repugnant? And this is based upon what...?

Founding Fathers wanted limited govt...even flaky Jefferson would have puked on the New Deal and forthwith 4th branch of govt. called "agencies".

Puked, eh? Fancy linking me to some further reading?

Don't follow what you're saying. I said the Depression would have self~corrected more quickly.

Free market fantasists say this and similar regularly. I've yet to see a concrete rationale.

These "rights", implemented at that time would have us speaking German or,Japanese at this point.

What a stinking pile of fetid wank remnants. Of course, you're more than welcome to justify the above statement
with anything other than shite.

Nothing to justify...

So any assertion you make should be taken as utter bollocks, then. Okies.

Warning: This will almost definitely come back to bite you.

it is what it is...

Yes, a collection of words arranged in the pattern of a rather unwieldy scrotum.

are you always so rude?

Rude would be to suggest you join this forum and proffer a hope that you aren't banned instantly. It is not rude to point out that what you're saying is as close to the truth as my nose is to your arse. But as I said, feel free to justify the statement with anything other than shite.

Also, I rarely give citations...I expect people to do their own research...that's the way I was taught in my non~Ivy League private college...

[centre]

[/centre]

Havanacat ... I know you're right, you know you're right

:lol:

Feel free to take their Americans would be speaking Japanese/German were the FDR rights implemented argument and run with it.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Oh Arthur... Linking an article to a couple of corrupt people in a union is not, as you put it:

Unions compelled General Motors to run that way...

This is an ilikemustard level argument.

That was simply the worst example. Corruption, nepotism, and coercion are common. I've been personally threatened by union thugs.

A more systemic example was the "jobs bank", which the UAW used to force GM to pay union members for doing nothing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/business/28jobsbank.html

The jobs bank was scrapped by government order during the 2009 bailout, for the obvious reason that it would make it impossible for the company to recover if it was still in place.

Please show how The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation translates as businesses will be forced to give jobs to people regardless of things like how well the company was doing or how qualified people were to actually perform the job.

It follows from taking entitlements and calling them "rights". If you have a "right" to a job, and a company refuses you, then they're infringing on your rights. The government can then step in and compel them to pay you off and send people to jail if they refuse. It's easier, cheaper, and less likely to get business owners sent to jail if they let the people blackmail them and stick them in a corner somewhere.

Second, trying to mandate this is impossible. The biggest expense for most businesses is the cost of labor. (This excepts some socialist countries, where taxes are consistently a higher cost.) By raising the cost of labor by increasing the minimum wage, you increase the price of the goods that business sells. This is hardest on the people who have the greatest percentage of their income going to goods - that is, people earning minimum wage. At best everything breaks even and the people are no worse off, but that's not generally how it's gone when this has been tried.

Yes, but it's unlikely that FDR was suggesting its application without consideration of the overall impact.

... Huh? Then bloody well consider the impact. Find an older person who has lived through a minimum wage increase and ask them how well it worked. Or are you arguing that FDR was infallible? :|

So is there room to argue on standards or should it generally be left up to the person who actually lives there and not some external force?

Sorry, I was thinking about arguing relative efficiency of things but I left that part out. Sometimes something that looks like it's creating a savings actually costs more. Anyway, yes, housing standards should generally be left to the people who actually live there. Exceptions could be made for something that might not be immediately apparent (lead pipes, asbestos, etc).

Let's say I'm a general contractor and I build some houses. I put them on the market for a price that will pay for the cost of materials, labor, and a decent profit for myself. (I have a family to support too, you know.) I get some offers for less then the cost, and I turn them down. Then a government official comes by and tells me that these people have a right to a home, and I cannot refuse them.

The FDR rights aren't in a vacuum.

See:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

Every monopoly except the government, you mean? :twisted:

Which way do you want to go with this? Communism, where everyone should be satisfied receiving the same wage regardless of what kind of work they do? Welfare state, where the government will pay for everything that every person needs somehow? I honestly don't understand what you're saying here beyond wishful thinking. In practice, where people have the "right" to housing this is what has happened.

The government official tells me that I must sell these houses to these people or I'll go to jail.

This is just making stuff up.

As I said, this is simply a logical extension of the "right" to housing. If I have houses and I refuse to sell them to someone, I'm infringing on their rights.

Tax the rich. Simple and elegant solution.

Simplistic. Here's an equally simplistic response. Taxes are also used to discourage things, like heavy taxes on cigarettes. What would the effect of taxing people for making money be?

To forestall the most common objection; even if we completely eliminated the entire cost of the military and its operations there would still be a deficit.

If America stopped spending money on the military I'll never get to see the moon first-hand.

You could pin your hopes on Virgin Galactic if that makes you feel better.

I agree that they are currently entitlements and that they are expensive. Neither of those is a convincing argument. FDR was proposing that they become rights.

They aren't rights. They can't be rights for one simple reason; since the 13th amendment, you don't have a right to benefit from the product of someone else's unpaid labor. (Call it slavery or theft.) A "right" to a house would be the "right" to enslave people to build it for you. The "right" to a job would be the "right" to blackmail someone for it. You can dress up the language a bit, but that's what it would be in practical terms.

The NHS in Britain costs billions, but I'll gladly pay my share to guarantee the health and wellbeing of my fellow countrymen. Of course, I don't mean I'm happy to throw money at it, efficiency, curtailing unnecessary bureaucracy etc should apply.

Not going to go into healthcare since it inevitably gets bogged down in emotion, but consider this. Why would a government agency be efficient? How would that benefit anyone? In fact, it's generally more beneficial for the people involved (excepting the tax payer) for a government agency to be inefficient as possible. Giving people those good-paying jobs they're entitled to, etc.

Don't try to lowball this.

Is this something to do with softball?

To "lowball" is to give a deceptively low estimate of the cost of something.

Arthur, we've had our moments, but I do respect your character. Not sure we'll ever agree on much, but you'd be fun at Sunday roast at the Jamaica Inn.

Love to see you there!

I will tell you that the subsidies and protectionism involved in entitling people to jobs and "fair" prices would go over very badly with other countries.

Is this if it was implemented today or when it was mooted originally?

Why would that make a difference? Then or now, you would need to put in subsidies and protectionist measures to entitle people to jobs and "fair" prices for their products. These measures are nearly always unpopular in other countries.

Also, I rarely give citations...I expect people to do their own research...that's the way I was taught in my non~Ivy League private college...

^^^ I'm half certain he went to a private religious college. They tend to operate this way, especially Muslim institutions.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ownage worthy of archiving

--------------------------------

This is only an ad hominem if I think there's something wrong with teaching. I don't, I'm in the education system myself. I just realize that teaching about something doesn't mean I'm an authority on it. I structure it right into my lessons, in fact; any student who can demonstrate an error I've made gets praised. Also, I'm not against some form of anti-trust legislation. Stop playing with the straw.

What is preventing me from simply brushing your non-authoritative and clearly-wrong opinion based upon my own experiences, then - since you're not making millions in the stock market either?

:lol:

Have you ever heard of something called "enabling"? When you protect people from the negative consequences of their behavior, you're encouraging the negative behavior. There's all kinds of research on this. If little Johnny wasn't blithely confident the government would bail him out of his own mistakes, he wouldn't be doing (as much) dangerous stuff to begin with.

Go fucking cry then - you're insisting that the government should simply let the economy bottom out and totally fail instead of saving the rest of the country. There's a solid difference between "enabling" and "saving from absolute, utter failure resulting in a permanent socio-economic depression."

It's like the difference between giving your friend money for cocaine and pulling him from traffic before he gets hit by a bus.

Also, I don't care for the tone of this argument. You're arguing that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs without government intervention; that's a straight line right to dictatorship.

:facepalm:
This statement is where I stop taking anything you say seriously.
It is a common fact that a population is too stupid/greedy/etc. to manage itself without some kind of central administration.

That's what a government is - a central form of administration of the public. The ONLY difference between governments is how it is managed and how the authority is distributed.
I bet you'd say that America is a democracy, too.

Back to the part about economics - yes. People are fucking retards. It has been shown that a free-market economy will ultimately lead to corruption and monopolies that will easily clean out the rest of the competition. Without central regulation of the economy, Microsoft would have eaten up Macintosh years ago, and then we wouldn't have useless hunks of plastic that makes preteens feel like badasses because they can make funny pictures of cats and tune their guitars to sound like they can actually play 3 chords.
There are no sources for this, because they didn't even bother trying - being called a monopoly is bad for business as a whole. I guarantee you, though, that Microsoft had the financial power to buy out Macintosh a long time ago.

Your average consumer is as stupid as a flock of sheep. If given the choice between an off-brand that tastes exactly the same, and the one they saw on television, they would go for the one with pretty colors and flashing lights if they easily had money for both. If given the choice between saving up 4 months for something and paying 2 years for it with 200 dollars in interest to obtain it NOW, they would go for the NOW instead of the later.
We need Big Brother to help us, kick our ass for being stupid, and then knocking out all the shit that caused us to do it in the first place.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Wow. Dark. That's a very disturbing vision of humanity, and one I wholeheartedly reject. Heck, it hearkens right back to feudalism; the unwashed masses requiring the protection and guidance of their noble masters. You and I have no common points of agreement at all, I think.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Wow. Dark. That's a very disturbing vision of humanity, and one I wholeheartedly reject. Heck, it hearkens right back to feudalism; the unwashed masses requiring the protection and guidance of their noble masters. You and I have no common points of agreement at all, I think.

Because one of us isn't so ridiculously attached to his systems without recognizing the severe and fatal errors that result as a cause of a truly Free Market system, and thinks that the world is full of bright, intellectual people that think over every possible idea before they act on impulse with buying - and has also chosen (instead of addressing the points presented) to make an ill-slighted mark that contributes nothing to the discussion whatsoever.

:lol:

A proper response to this useless post: "Do you want candy rainbows and lollipop seas with that acid-trip of a reality that you hold?"

This entire thread you have danced around the fatal flaws that actually CAUSED this, blamed the regulating authority, and insisted that a totally Free Market solution without a bailout would have stabilized the economy instead of the people we actually ELECT to protect us and act in our best interests (that's right - elect) keeping the economy from utterly collapsing.

The United States is a Mixed Economy system.
Don't like it? Peddle Blood Diamonds from Africa - a well-founded example of unregulated Free Market can truly achieve if fueled by good-ol' Supply and Demand.

 

[televator]

The United States is a Mixed Economy system.
Don't like it? Peddle Blood Diamonds from Africa - a well-founded example of unregulated Free Market can truly achieve if fueled by good-ol' Supply and Demand.

That last point hits on something I've thought about lately. If you wanna see what a truly free market would incorporate, look at the black market. Slavery, mercenary work, sensitive personal and national information trade, proxy war, weapons of mass murder....nothing would be checked, and no one would be held accountable.

 

[australopithecus]

Also, I rarely give citations...I expect people to do their own research...that's the way I was taught in my non~Ivy League private college...

So at this college did you reference or cite anything in your essays or did you just expect your tutors go out and find what you were referencing themselves. Because call me old fashioned, but if you make a point then you have to evidence the sauce for that point. That's the way I was taught from the age of 10 onwards in the the most basic of primary schooling.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Wow. Dark. That's a very disturbing vision of humanity, and one I wholeheartedly reject. Heck, it hearkens right back to feudalism; the unwashed masses requiring the protection and guidance of their noble masters. You and I have no common points of agreement at all, I think.

Because one of us isn't so ridiculously attached to his systems without recognizing the severe and fatal errors that result as a cause of a truly Free Market system, and thinks that the world is full of bright, intellectual people that think over every possible idea before they act on impulse with buying - and has also chosen (instead of addressing the points presented) to make an ill-slighted mark that contributes nothing to the discussion whatsoever.

:lol:

A proper response to this useless post: "Do you want candy rainbows and lollipop seas with that acid-trip of a reality that you hold?"

This entire thread you have danced around the fatal flaws that actually CAUSED this, blamed the regulating authority, and insisted that a totally Free Market solution without a bailout would have stabilized the economy instead of the people we actually ELECT to protect us and act in our best interests (that's right - elect) keeping the economy from utterly collapsing.

You appear to have a skewed perception of what I have said. Please show where in this thread I have blamed regulating authorities or insisted on totally free market solutions.

Also, your viewpoint appears to have an inherent contradiction. People are incompetent to make economic decisions, and yet they ARE competent to make political decisions? Many people who hold similar views also believe that the political decisions people make are equally impulsive and flawed, and thus they should be controlled by their (insert quality here) betters.

 

[RichardMNixon]

You're arguing that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs without government intervention;

I see right-wingers throw this out again and again and the blatant hypocrisy drives me nuts. You claim that a welfare state is insulting, that we're insinuating the impoverished can't take care of themselves. And yet..

If little Johnny wasn't blithely confident the government would bail him out of his own mistakes, he wouldn't be doing (as much) dangerous stuff to begin with.

You argue at the same time that people are too stupid and lazy to manage their own affairs WITH government intervention. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You're arguing that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs without government intervention;

I see right-wingers throw this out again and again and the blatant hypocrisy drives me nuts. You claim that a welfare state is insulting, that we're insinuating the impoverished can't take care of themselves. And yet..

If little Johnny wasn't blithely confident the government would bail him out of his own mistakes, he wouldn't be doing (as much) dangerous stuff to begin with.

You argue at the same time that people are too stupid and lazy to manage their own affairs WITH government intervention. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Not quite. Some people do make big money taking risks, after all. If the risk factor is mostly removed by having losses foisted off on the government, there's less reason not to do risky stuff. It's smart for the individual, but bad for the whole. I say let people take risks - and let them pay the consequence if they fail.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You appear to have a skewed perception of what I have said. Please show where in this thread I have blamed regulating authorities or insisted on totally free market solutions.

Also, your viewpoint appears to have an inherent contradiction. People are incompetent to make economic decisions, and yet they ARE competent to make political decisions? Many people who hold similar views also believe that the political decisions people make are equally impulsive and flawed, and thus they should be controlled by their (insert quality here) betters.

No, actually. The public as a whole is mostly shit-informed and votes along party lines instead of voting on actual issues and stances. What America are you talking about? I am talking about the United States.

They are not FIT to do it, but they have the right to - simply because the government is a representation of it's people, no matter how stupid and uninformed the population happens to be.

However, in the case of the economy and regulation, guess who controls that?
What? You mean that the economy being regulated and protected by the government we elected in the first place?! No way!
:roll:

Not quite. Some people do make big money taking risks, after all. If the risk factor is mostly removed by having losses foisted off on the government, there's less reason not to do risky stuff. It's smart for the individual, but bad for the whole. I say let people take risks - and let them pay the consequence if they fail.

*Facedesk*
The problem is that this "consequence" would basically shut down the ENTIRE ECONOMY.

You're talking about the mistakes of a single investor taking an informed risk - I'm talking about the countless Americans that spend uselessly and live on credit cards and basically plunge the value of the dollar into the drain and go for the bright and shiney versus the best value. You're talking about a single cell dying off, and I'm talking about the entire body being terminal.
We need to put the economy back on it's feet, and shit on unfair credit practices - along with increasing financial classes in school.

Letting it fail is not the solution. By fucking FAR.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Ah, I see, you're a misanthrope. We really do have nothing to discuss.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ah, I see, you're a misanthrope. We really do have nothing to discuss.

I say, why are you wasting your talent here?
Such talent deserves to be on Broadway - you are, by far, the best dancer I have seen in years!

:roll:

 

[havanacat]

Havanacat, always nice to have a conservative buddy amid this group of aggressively liberal folks. But, dude, you're not helping. I know you're right, you know you're right, but you need to at least put up a decent argument. Come on, it's not even that hard to poke holes in proposals of massive government spending projects. Here's an easy one; the US debt is about 14 trillion, or about 3.5 times as much as the value of all the physical cash in the entire world.

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Notice the sharp spike since 2008? Not a huge fan of big government conservatives either, but pot, meet kettle.

Dude sorry you don't feel I'm helpful...

 

[havanacat]

Also, I rarely give citations...I expect people to do their own research...that's the way I was taught in my non~Ivy League private college...

So at this college did you reference or cite anything in your essays or did you just expect your tutors go out and find what you were referencing themselves. Because call me old fashioned, but if you make a point then you have to evidence the sauce for that point. That's the way I was taught from the age of 10 onwards in the the most basic of primary schooling.

Oh fez, don't be so snarky to the newcomer!

Basically when people provide citations, much like little profs, they are only providing one point of view (and considering some sources I've seen, very biased). I always had to provide two differing sources, draw a conclusion (make an argument), based on multiple sources. We always had to go search the sources out. Now, I'm sorry you don't like that method, but I didn't think I was writing a paper here. Is this some sort of off~campus classroom or a forum of ideas?

When I see an idea presented, I will challenge it in my own words.

Imagine if the defense (or prosecutorial) attorney said to the jury, "please open your laptops and reference x website for further data"....

Are we in a classroom, or a forum?

Verbiage, btw, does not prove a point, nor does it equal intelligence....or an argument well~made.

 

[havanacat]

@ prolescum,

Well, if everything I've said will come back "to bite me", I guess I can only say
"Bite Me".....

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Oh fez, don't be so snarky to the newcomer!

Basically when people provide citations, much like little profs, they are only providing one point of view (and considering some sources I've seen, very biased). I always had to provide two differing sources, draw a conclusion (make an argument), based on multiple sources. We always had to go search the sources out. Now, I'm sorry you don't like that method, but I didn't think I was writing a paper here. Is this some sort of off~campus classroom or a forum of ideas?

When I see an idea presented, I will challenge it in my own words.

Imagine if the defense (or prosecutorial) attorney said to the jury, "please open your laptops and reference x website for further data"....

Are we in a classroom, or a forum?

Verbiage, btw, does not prove a point, nor does it equal intelligence....or an argument well~made.

This fails on so many levels.
If the attorney walked up to the judge and jury, spoke the case, and presented no evidence for his claims then he would not only lose the case, but his License and any respect amoungst anyone within the legal community.

Citing sources is not to say "Here's the answer" - it's there to say "Here is the evidence that backs my reasoning and claim."

Also, your useless and petty objections to a souce's validity only count if it's published in an off-hand paper mill of an article next to Alien DNA testing results and the legality of calling God as a witness - also if the information is gathered by someone running his professional opinion from a diploma mill of a school.

Citing your sources for claims is actually something that shows that you did your research, and that others can check and see if you got your evidence correctly interpreted. It also helps to know that you're not just pulling arguments out of your own ass.

Welcome to the League Of Reason, friend - I suggest you bring a helmet if you're going to come in swinging at everyone and behaving like a total fucktwit.

 

[Aught3]

I'd say the Chinese yuan. China's economy could very easily supplant the US as the dominant economic force in the world. ... Also, when someone actually starts calling the debts (which history has shown us is inevitable), I could far better believe China's government would be able to enforce the massive austerity measures required to pay up.

Yeah I'd say the Yuan is perhaps the fifth likeliest currency to eventually take over. But that would require China to open up its financial markets to a much greater extent than they are currently. A reserve currency needs to be liquid not stuck behind regulations and controls. No, the dollar is safe from the Yuan for a good time yet. Also there is no way China will do anything to damage the value of its significant US holdings. Any steps they take to divest themselves of dollars will be slow, steady, and very unlikely to occur on the short-to-medium term.

I could accept that other countries would want an every-increasing amount of US dollars to back their own currency, but not a geometrically increasing amount that this thread would propose to use for providing massive entitlements to US citizens.

So you now accept that the US can run a long-term deficit with comparative safety. You just think that it would cost too much to provide the things on the list. But when we look at the modern European states like France, Germany, Norway, etc we can see that they actually provide most of the things on the list to their citizens without facing this huge debt monster that you've summoned forth. The only thing that is really missing in these European countries is a guaranteed job. If they wanted to, a public works system could take care of that fairly easily. Yep, it would cost money but it would hardly be the 'geometrically increasing amount' that you are afraid of and there would be a huge pay-off in terms of updating some of the ageing infrastructure in Germany

 

[havanacat]

FDR used Keynes' work for his policies and Obama is trying to use FDR's. A terrible disorder passed through the democrat dna...

And there are plenty that would argue that what FDR did was good for the economy, and that Obama's only failure is not doing enough of the things you consider "bad" (like the macro econ professor for the macro econ class I took at an ivy league university).

The only thing that rescued America's Depression economy was WWII. FDR's policies prolonged it. Once the war started there were jobs again, particularly manufacturing. Naturally, once those jobs were in force, small businesses could exist because there was cash flow in the economy.

FDR was an antisemitic socialist. He tried to skewer the judicial system (pack the courts) to get his vb unpopular socialist agenda passed. Obama is not much different (except he's so vacuous he needs a teleprompter everywhere he goes). At least FDR could give a decent speech. But that's about it.

Guess I'm gonna get lime~lettered 'cos I'm a jew now.

Can it get any worse for you guys?

American...female....conservative....jew.

Get the silver bullets out!!!!