Government run "anything"......
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
You know what I mean. You know full well that the American system is a free market capitalist system but one that is heavy on laws and regulations. Obviously, no market can be 100% free of laws because every society is filled with criminals. "Free market" is a loose term that best describes our system. You can invent a new word if you feel you need to.
Are you not engaged in this market everyday? I could rattle off 10,000 ways you are on a daily basis. Just typing your ignorant post required a computer connected to the internet that all started with the discovery of electricity
Why is Europe's unemployment rate twice the US's? Hmm, maybe because employers can't afford to pay people 6 weeks to do nothing without any investment and seniority in the business?
Oh, and is all that unemployment fair and equality for all? Why can't government make it 0% unemployment?
Weird how far more people flock to the US than any other country when it is such a horrible place.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Because they count their numbers correctly?
typical fear...seriously whats the point of working if ur only entitled to 2 weeks vacation a year or whatever pathetic amount after 1/3 of your working life has been devoted to some company? there was a long list of european countries who had lower unemployment then america during the great recession. unemployment numbers are fudged anyways so its hard to compare.
the governments could make it 0% umemployment, but the business class is opposed to that because they are opposed to the government doing anything to begin with, but also it would create pressure on the business community to increase wages which they dont want either.
back when america had higher unemployment recently, and the private sector wasnt hiring, the federal government could have done what it did during the great depression: create federal jobs and hire a massive amount of the population. but it didnt because the capitalist political system is so toxic. so instead people suffered while we waited for the business community to decide to hire again.
EU gets alot of immigration too. so does america. alot of people outside of EU arent even aware that they have 6 weeks vacation as a right, or free college, etc etc.
Last edited:
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Admitting that our government is cooking the books?
So when did you move out of the crappy US to Europe? You haven't? What are you waiting for?
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Why would I move to Europe?
I don't feel that the US is crappy at all, but I'm also not a blind cheerleader for a system that has obvious problems.
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
But you're cheering Europe's system. I never said our system is without problems. Our biggest problem is our ever growing government becoming more and more like Europe.
There's no such thing as Utopia. Liberals have this idea that they can create it thinking they can have it all with no cost.
We still have the best system with our Constitution as a basis. It's no accident that we have been the superpower for so long even with a fraction of the population of China, India,...Our system has built unparalleled prosperity for the most people.
America's poor people are among the richest 10% in the world. America's poor have flat screen TV, AC, refrigerators, Microwaves, cars...
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
In fact, I know very little about 'Europe's system'.
If your assertion is that our country's biggest problem is 'our ever growing government becoming more and more like Europe', IDK.
I'd say our country's biggest problem is unfettered and unchecked corporate money controlling us like marionettes.
You say we have the 'best system' with our Constitution as a basis.
I say our Constitution has been subverted by $$$$$$$$$$$$.
You say the free market is the best, I say show it to me, it ain't here.
1/6 americans have hunger problems. 50% of children on public education require food assistance of some sort. the median wage is a pitiful 30k/year.
i was listening to ralph nader and he now theorizes the parliamentary system is better than americas constitutional system. you'd have to look it up.
america is a superpower because everyone was practically destroyed after wwII which america waited around before it joined in.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
If every society is filled with criminals and you pick from among such society to grant special privilege and status too one in order to rule and command the rest, who then will ultimately seek, find and achieve such status of ruler for themselves in any such society filled with criminals?
As Joshua finally "LEARNED", the only solution is to not play the game!
As Joshua finally "LEARNED", the only solution is to not play the game!
moreluck
golden ticket member
Whatever happened to Matthew Broderick?? Did he change into Alan in Two and a Half Men?If every society is filled with criminals and you pick from among such society to grant special privilege and status too one in order to rule and command the rest, who then will ultimately seek, find and achieve such status of ruler for themselves in any such society filled with criminals?
As Joshua finally "LEARNED", the only solution is to not play the game!
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Like never having served in our military, I bet you have never lived in Europe.
But you speak like you have experience with both.
I HAVE LIVED IN EUROPE for 2 years.
Let me tell you, it is the biggest welfare state I have ever seen.
But they do have 1 thing down better than us.
Any crappy jobs pays more than welfare.
So there is an incentive to get off welfare, unlike here.
But they have ruined their whole European Union by allowing unfettered immigration from Muslim nations.
Europe will be in a civil war or have a Muslim majority in 10 years.
And you do know what happens when Muslims run your country, don't you?
Sharia law and the end to minority rights.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Um, we didn't DECIDE to join, WE WERE ATTACKED.
And we were 1 of only 2 countries to fight that war on 2 fronts.
They don't teach history in Canada?
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
You really think that government just has an endless stash of money, don't you? The government has $0. $0 - $18,000,000,000,000.00 in fact. That hole is going to spiral faster in the coming decades as our baby boomers suck us dry in social security and Medicare payments. We have 100's of trillions in upcoming unfunded liabilities. So as it stands now, ours (along with the entire world), will see the entire financial system come crashing down. 2008 will seem like a good year in comparison.
Yet you talk about government creating jobs out of thin air, free college, 6 weeks of vacation for new workers, blah, blah, blah.
Do you suggest we give 75% of our paycheck to the government each week so they can throw it into the black hole? If we do that then we are all on the streets.
oldngray
nowhere special
He like all socialist can't grasp the reality that the government has no money of its own. And in that system you eventually run out of other people's money.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
“The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”
Ben Bernanke (November 21, 2002)
Just sayin'.
Ben Bernanke (November 21, 2002)
Just sayin'.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Tomayto Tomahto.
"But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.
Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).8Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation."
"But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.
Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).8Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation."
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Run out of other people's money every time it has been tried.
