Nobel Prize Economist Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen. It Was Created.
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
OMFG, right?!
Let's diss on educated and supportable theories in favor of wild eyed wing nutty bullshit that's constantly discredited, all to kneel and suck the cocks of billionaires- the ranks of whom he'll never join.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I find it ironic that you and pada (who quickly liked your response to me) call me stupid but can't take two seconds to read what I wrote.
I called it a coincidence. Obviously it isn't.
The 2008 crisis conveniently resulted in these large corporations not having to pay a lot of money to retirees.
They screwed them, in other words.
Can it be proven? I doubt it. But it's far too convienient that just as they began to retire something came along that wipped out all the gains boomers have earned on their investments.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I call you stupid precisely because I DO read what you write.
This 'coincidence' that you think can't be proven is exactly what I, @Padawanbater2 , Robert Reich, and many others have been trying to tell you is no such thing and is in fact the direct consequence of a long list of illegal, immoral and unethical acts committed by corporate America, the ultra wealthy, their lobbyists and the politicians who service them instead of representing the interests of those who elected them.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Do you not have a sense of irony?
I don't believe in coincidences. Especially not this big and with this much to gain.
If you say there is proof of this I'm willing to listen. I've not seen proof of this. Its kind of the thing that just makes sense that can be knowing without the smoking gun. There might be evidence. But if it were definitive I don't think they could avoid prosecution. Proof like with Mhadoff or w/e his name was.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
See, this is what leaves the impression of stupidity. Influence peddling is carefully designed not to leave traces, but following the money will lead one to the truth.
Investigative journalism used to do this work- until the Fortune 50 bought the media, and shut down anyone coming any closer to the truth than OJ came to getting away with murder.
The US Attorney General's office refusing to prosecute big Wall Street firms pretty much set the stage for corruption and graft on a grand scale.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The proof is pretty clear if you're objective
But if you look at it like deniers look at climate change, you won't accept any amount of proof that exists
But if you look at it like deniers look at climate change, you won't accept any amount of proof that exists
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Ive been having a running argument with you two while I'm saying the same thing you are.
I think it is beyond obvious that the 2008 crash was timed to prevent the baby boomers from withdrawing their growth over the last few decades.
We speak differently, maybe that leads to the inability of us being able to tell when we're saying something similar.
ttystick, there are a lot of things out there I have seen or heard of that are interesting. Pieces to the puzzle. I don't expect these people to investigate themselves for the largest case of fraud ever designed and pulled off. And I think they're smart enough to not leave any loose ends untied. It is all so frustrating.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i wiped a duck with an overripe cucumber. the whole thing. is this bad?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Only for the iguana.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Equality of opportunity insists that individuals are free to make choices for themselves, but not to force their choices on others. Free market. Voluntary. Peace.
Equality of outcome usually means that SOME people removed other peoples choices as described in the first sentence and forcibly redistributed. Unfree market. Prohibition. Involuntary. Slavery, etc.
"Co-existence" is abolished when a forcible hierarchy is the norm and property rights are ignored. (that's the present paradigm, by the way)
Equality of outcome usually means that SOME people removed other peoples choices as described in the first sentence and forcibly redistributed. Unfree market. Prohibition. Involuntary. Slavery, etc.
"Co-existence" is abolished when a forcible hierarchy is the norm and property rights are ignored. (that's the present paradigm, by the way)
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So, if we took the power away from the politicians they would not have the power to influence the central bank and the lobbiests would not need to pay them anything.
If we try to take the money away from the politicians then only the crooked politicians would still get money just like if you tried to take guns away from the citizens.
You keep attacking a symptom of the problem without realizing that you have to decentralize power and control to eliminate corruption, not ask the people at the top to fix something that helps them personally.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am not trying to troll anyone here. The government has been controlling banks since the beginning and it does not seem to make them better.
What do people have against banks exactly? They charge you fees?
I would like to see the government get almost completely out of the banking system.
The one good thing I see with government assistance is the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).
We should go back to the way it was originally with the savings and loan banks those that take community money for savings and checking accounts and use the float to make loans to the community with FDIC insured money. That way the people of the community have protection and they have local loans as well.
Then there should be investment banks. Those should have less regulation but no safety net. If rich people want to invest their money then so be it but no bailout if the poor decisions of the corporation cause it to go tits up.
Finally we should get rid of the central bank. The government should not be setting interest rates nor deciding what inflation should be. That leads to bubbles and crashes much worse than if the market was able to move without the artificial limits the government puts on it. And I cant see any reason why banks should get to borrow money from the taxpayers at any rate. The government is not and was never meant to be a bank.
What do people have against banks exactly? They charge you fees?
I would like to see the government get almost completely out of the banking system.
The one good thing I see with government assistance is the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).
We should go back to the way it was originally with the savings and loan banks those that take community money for savings and checking accounts and use the float to make loans to the community with FDIC insured money. That way the people of the community have protection and they have local loans as well.
Then there should be investment banks. Those should have less regulation but no safety net. If rich people want to invest their money then so be it but no bailout if the poor decisions of the corporation cause it to go tits up.
Finally we should get rid of the central bank. The government should not be setting interest rates nor deciding what inflation should be. That leads to bubbles and crashes much worse than if the market was able to move without the artificial limits the government puts on it. And I cant see any reason why banks should get to borrow money from the taxpayers at any rate. The government is not and was never meant to be a bank.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if only apache junction alcoholic pool scrubbers had more representation.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're a blithering idiot. There are laws against murder, and those who do it anyway go to prison.
We can easily enact and enforce laws against lobbying, PACs, unlimited campaign funding and all the rest of it- and in fact we used to have such laws, and politicians did occasionally go to jail for violating them.
Dan Rostenkowski, anyone?
We can most certainly do it again, and imprison those who would break the laws We the People insist on having enacted.
You're so pathetic you've swallowed modern American corruption logic and then decided it's the only option!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
My option is less government and you scream like I suggested we do away with murder as a penalty.
It seriously disappoints me that people join 'teams' around here and the majority are not even willing to agree on issues that make sense because that person voted for the other candidate last election.
Go look at how many state mayors and governors are or were members of the illinois penal division. Yeah, I can see how much the laws work if you get caught... LOL!!!
Again, remove the power from the feds and give it back to the states. Less power = less corruption.
It seriously disappoints me that people join 'teams' around here and the majority are not even willing to agree on issues that make sense because that person voted for the other candidate last election.
Go look at how many state mayors and governors are or were members of the illinois penal division. Yeah, I can see how much the laws work if you get caught... LOL!!!
Again, remove the power from the feds and give it back to the states. Less power = less corruption.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the guy on team 'racist retard'.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If you spent as much time reading up on economics and political affairs as you do watching Faux Spews, you might find yourself with an education on the subject.
Until then, you're a hapless stool pigeon for those whose self interest is co-opting your outlook.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Which part of my argument do you disagree with?
I am not insulting you, I am not trying to troll you, I am attempting to have a discussion with you.
Now, I do not have a PHD in economics but I did graduate from a 4 year college and have lived till almost 50.
Lets review.
I want to eliminate the central bank because I dont believe that the government should take taxpayer money and loan it out at almost no interest to rich bankers. Do you disagree with this point?
I like the FDIC because it protects the poor from losing their savings during a bankruptcy of a bank. Do you disagree with this point?
I want there to be a clear delineation between investment banks and savings and loans and no taxpayer protection for investment banks. Do you disagree with this point?
At what point did I say something that made you so mad you felt the need to start insulting me rather than debate the issues?
When it got easier to throw insults than form an argument?
I am not insulting you, I am not trying to troll you, I am attempting to have a discussion with you.
Now, I do not have a PHD in economics but I did graduate from a 4 year college and have lived till almost 50.
Lets review.
I want to eliminate the central bank because I dont believe that the government should take taxpayer money and loan it out at almost no interest to rich bankers. Do you disagree with this point?
I like the FDIC because it protects the poor from losing their savings during a bankruptcy of a bank. Do you disagree with this point?
I want there to be a clear delineation between investment banks and savings and loans and no taxpayer protection for investment banks. Do you disagree with this point?
At what point did I say something that made you so mad you felt the need to start insulting me rather than debate the issues?
When it got easier to throw insults than form an argument?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
bullshit
The "poor" need to pay their fair share. After all it's them that's reaping the benefits.
