Chelsea Clinton apparently is already laying the ground work for her own political career... with an eye to being president one day. Its all quite delightful.
The Bush Dynasty is also burning. Watching Jeb fail to get anywhere is delicious.
We've had enough of Clintons' and Bushs'. Let someone else run. If the democrats really can do no better than Bill Clinton's wife then apparently they have not taken the office seriously. More is the pity.
And really, Hillary could have perhaps had it if she had so much as taken her gimme job of Sec State seriously. But she did not. She went home early while her diplomats died. She was told to not permit old Sidney access to the State Department and she did it anyway. And the email server... and the lies... so many lies.
We'll see where this goes... The FBI is furious at the lack of prosecution... obstruction from the "Justice" Department is going to have long term consequences if it is understood that the law bends in the favor of any party in power.
Really... we're getting nearer and nearer the moment where we just rip each other's eyes out of our heads from spite. And all because some people have a hard time with democracy.
Oh well... We shall see where this goes. Regardless... I shall enjoy the fires.
The drug companies can change whatever they want anywhere in the world.
Your notion of "but but but they have single payer!!!"... yeah and the drug company doesn't have to change that price.
What is more, the single payer countries generally negotiate a price for the whole country. Prices are less being dictated by your magical solution to everything and more are simply being negotiated by your health systems.
Regardless, if you opened the US up to the global market, then US drug prices would fall without having to tell anyone what they had to charge.
What is more, your example of that company price fixing... bad example... they were bypassed by a rival drug almost immediately thus negating the whole venture. That is basically a text book example of the free market slapping that aside instantly.
As to your strawman that because I don't like a given organization I would instead prefer anarchy... THIS is why I don't generally talk to ACs. You're shitheads to a man apparently. Either make an honest argument or don't waste the time of sensible people with your idiocy.
Americans pay more for drugs than do most people around the world... that is indifferent to subsides.
FDA regulations to say nothing of bans on imports of foreign drugs inflate American prices.
Beyond that, a huge portion of hospital bills do not go to doctors or medicine or medical equipment. A huge portion goes to administration. Simplifying medical paper work and streamlining hospital labor could radically lower costs.
We have test cases where shift nurses bypassed most of this stuff which had a dramatic impact on costs.
Hospital bills are going up faster than inflation for the SAME treatment. You can't blame this on insurance companies because the costs are if anything even higher for those without insurance. The costs are high because the hospitals are billing at those rates.
Get the costs where they should be and the bills will be affordable - period.
Don't bother responding unless you're prepared to either drop your FUCKING STUPID position and carry on with another argument... or unless you're willing to admit you were wrong. Either way. If neither... then this is the end, twit.
So you're attempting to cover your ass once I showed that you're wrong? This is what I said:
"" But please consider the alternative here. The United Nations? Most nations in the world have a less ironclad notion of free speech than the Americans. To the contrary, the vast majority of governments desire radically restricted speech. ""
I was not saying that the solution was anything specific. Anyone with a passing grasp of English language is aware of that.
Economically there is no mix. They're purely capitalistic economically and thus referring to them as socialists does not mean anything economically. They've capitalists with welfare. That's what they are. The socialists generate ZERO revenue. They provide nothing of value to the economy. 100 percent of all revenue is provided by the capitalists. That is not a mix.
As to humans being involved, so you concede that the government is involved in the issues and you can't just pin it on the evil capitalists. What is more, citing a need for more government control when the issue was caused by government mismanagement is doubling down on stupid.
Socialist economies don't exist in the western world. There is no such thing as a socialist economy in the western world. Look at the companies in the so called socialist countries and tell me if they have owners, investors, stocks, bonds, dividends... etc.... See? The economies you think you can point to as successes are just capitalist systems that you're parasiting off of... nothing more.
A socialist economy would be one where the socialism were producing the wealth of that society. No such society exists in the West. Outside of the west... you could point to North Korea if you wanted to claim them... I suspect you don't want to do that though.
The economy of every western country is CAPITALISTIC.
Having welfare does not mean your economy is socialist unless the country in question doesn't operate under capitalistic principles as regards its production.
There is no western country that operates other than capitalist as regards its ECONOMY.
As to banking crisis... In every case I can point to government mismanagement so you'd have a very hard time citing the collapses as being an argument for more government control.
In 2008 for example it was the Freddie Mac/Fanny Mae situation. In the EU, the EU drove the Greek collapse with cheap debt. The examples are long.
Actually the great depression did not happen before FDR. The CRASH happened before FDR. The great depression was mostly during his presidency.
If the continuing argument from the government is going to be "if we can technically do it then we should be able to legally do it"... then the solution is to make it so that you can't technically do it.
Market economies existed before our species existed an international economies do not exist for any given economy or society but because their existence profits all participants generally.
As to your belief that people in the 20th century didn't know some truth that is revealed to you... 'fraid not, grasshopper. They knew more about this stuff than you know now. They built things. And the command economies as you are quiet aware... failed. Why? Because capitalism is better. A command economy can exist and can survive. It will just be poorer.
Your systems are much the same. They can work if you do it well... but you'll be poorer. I will have a higher standard of living in my system than you will in yours.
As to Rowling, if everyone on welfare went on to do something that made the expense into an investment, then I'd be fine with it. That is the exception to the pattern and not the emblematic case. You know that. Don't debase yourself or make yourself look like a degenerate simply to try and sell an obvious deceit. It doesn't achieve the purpose you seek and it damages your own credibility. That's a double loss.
As to me being an idiot that scavenges... why? Because I don't steal other people's property while patting myself on the back that the theft was acceptable because after all rich people don't deserve anything and poverty means the poor deserve more? Comical.
As to your claim that I am projecting strawmen, to the contrary, I've been doing little more that batting YOUR straw man aside. And you apparently are incapable of having this discussion legitimately. Since I won't permit fallacious arguments you're going to attempt to accuse me of doing what you've been doing and then run away in a huff.
You're a funny boy. Now, in the premise of one person being valuable to society and another not... why should I keep you alive? What entitles you to my production besides your own incompetence? How is society profited by punishing those that produce and rewarding those that do not? You're a waste of resources. And if you got the system you dream of... it would smother you in your sleep and bury in an unmarked mass grave.
You people with your stupid Somalia reference... pick a new country... you just sound like unoriginal parrots repeating something that you clearly got poured into your ear without any personal thought in the matter.
The problem with this reference is that it conflates a "market economy" with "capitalism". It also ignores elements such as property rights etc which are required for anything but anarchy or totalitarianism.
Suggesting that your opposition is advocating anarchy or totalitarianism is at best a strawman. At best. At worst... many things. But at best it is a stupid fallacy.
But getting back to what I think is your bigger error and inadvertent admission... capitalism is not the same thing as a market economy. We've always had market economies and in fact market economies are totally unavoidable.
The Soviet Union and North Korea despite all attempts to crush the black market were/are entirely unable to stop the market economy.
You will have a market economy in any situation where X has something that Y wants and Y can get the thing that X has by giving X something that Y has in return. You can't stop that. It actually exists in nature. We have symbiotic relationships in nature where X has something in nature and Y trades for it.
THAT is the economy in Somalia... the economy that exists everywhere and cannot be destroyed by any means short of the total eradication of life itself.
Capitalism was preceded by Mercantilism.... which was preceded by a series of other systems going back into the mists of time. But EACH successful system first accepted the market economy and then out competed the previous system head to head.
The big battle between Mercantilism and Capitalism played out in the Colonial era where in the Spanish despite getting huge sums of gold were economically out performed by people selling smoked fish, tobacco, and various manufactured products.... mostly the Dutch and English.
And it is on THAT basis that Capitalism dominates the global economy. You say we have a mixed economy because we have socialism. This is not the case. Our economies are all capitalistic. That is in the West. Sweden, Norway, whatever. They're all capitalist in that the MONEY is earned through Capitalism. The economy is governed ultimately by capitalist forces.
When you say mixed, you are saying there is welfare. The Welfare just means you have a capitalist economy with welfare. The welfare generates ZERO wealth and produces ZERO product. Thus it is economically irrelevant. It produces nothing. The Capitalism produces everything. All the money the welfare systems spend comes from the capitalism. The capitalists produce and the welfare people spend. Spending someone else's money does not mean you're producing anything.
Now if you get rid of capitalism and go to a pure welfare system... what you have is a system that produce nothing but needs a great deal to keep it from starving to death. It will starve to death and fail.
We've seen this very recently in what was going on in Venezuela. They figured out how to have a water shortage in a jungle nation with vast supplies of clean fresh water literally in lakes. They ran out of toilet paper because they kept telling the guys selling the toilet paper that profit was a sin and they should sell the toilet paper at a loss.
Your system is naive. You might feel that because you have good intentions that your ideas must also be good... but you've forgotten what the road to hell is paved with... your intentions count for nothing when they cause people to starve. And they do.
If you want welfare, then you need to justify to me why I should give it to you. If I am a producer and you are a welfare slug... why am I paying you? What is in it for me? Your threats of violence should I not pay you? That only works as far as I am afraid of you. Or you might say "but in democracies I can vote"... systems that rely on welfare slugs to win elections don't actually respect the welfare slugs. They use them. And if you kee
It is fitting that children be ignorant... they lack the education and experience to know better. But it is an insolent child indeed that refuses to accept correction from his seniors.
Jamestown New Harmony An endless series of failed communes.
No, I said "the UN?" Notice the question mark... it was an example.
And it doesn't matter as has been explained previously... your rebuttal that it would be various governments is not any different from the UN because ultimately that's all the UN is in the first place. And giving things over to various corporations isn't any better either as I pointed out because corporations will censor people if it is in their financial interests to do it.
I love your final statement that the US has no control over it... then why would internationals want control over it and why would the US be on some deadline to relinquish it?
That's the final straw... you're out. Go back to the bench and wait until its your turn again. You made contact with the ball... zero times. Whiff... Whiff... Whiff.
Jamestown New Harmony And an endless series of failed communes set up over the years that were adopted by idealistic people... and abandoned when it was realized that the system does not work.
I know you want everyone to give you things for free. I know you don't have anything to offer anyone. I know your great idea is "how neat it would be if there were a system where people gave me stuff and I didn't have to give anything in return for any of it.
its been tried repeatedly against our better judgement.
I'll tell you what, sport... Set up your own little society somewhere within the territorial borders of where ever. Make a commune. Have people join it voluntarily. And see if you can either self support your own needs or create goods that you can barter for whatever you want. I am very happy to let you try and wish you the best of luck.
Let me be very clear, here is where I break out the sharp knives... Don't take my stuff unless you pay me for it. You reach for my stuff and I will take you as a thief.
If you little idea of "wouldn't it be great if no one had to work but everyone got what they needed" works out... then great. But the reality is that it won't. Your concept is parasitism. You offer NOTHING of value to the people that provide everything of value to you. That is a one way relationship. Why should society feed you if you're just a waste of resources?
Its petty tyrants seeking power over things they don't understand for the sake of the power itself. Nothing more.
They're children and rather than being treated seriously they should be patted on the head and distracted with a shinny babble that will change the subject or a little candy.
I already addressed non-government forces. You citing them again suggests that you didn't actually read what I said which renders you opinion of my position generally meaningless.
Exactly... They do this and they fuck it up... and we can bypass the whole system.
Technology of this era ultimately is liberating because it is so cheap and reproducible that elites are going to have an increasing problem controlling choke points.
This is the same logic that argued for the old communal societies where everyone in the community got fed regardless of whether they worked or not. Those communities went into famine without exception until they changed the policy.
The issue is that if people are paid regardless of whether they do anything, then they don't do anything.
You're attempting to subvert the merit element in our economy by saying that everyone should be given something even if they merit nothing. The this is de-evolutionary as it does not reward competence, hard work, intelligence, or wisdom... etc. Basically you can be a human slug... sitting on a couch... and the government just pays for everything for no reason. Which means the people in the economy that are productive must subsidize you for no reason.
I understand why human slugs like this idea. However, I see no reason why non-slugs should regard the opinion as anything but a self serving attempt to steal something through rhetoric.
As to banking practices, false. The issue was spending more money then their economy could justify in credit or provide for in revenue.
Overspending.
And what did they over spend on?
Social issues.
So no. That's a strike against your credibility.
As to bubbles being bad for capitalists and socialists. That's like saying that famines are bad for parasites too. The socialists only suffer because the systems they feed upon have issues occasionally.
As to the great depression, that was caused by the Federal reserve screwing with interest rates followed by FDR fucking with labor markets, commodities, and effectively stopping the recovery process. For an economy to recover after a collapse you need the bad actors to suffer and the good actors to be rewarded. This is what causes a policy shift in the economy that actually leads to a recovery because the people playing it safe eat the people that were playing it risky.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to fix public education... you have to fire the incompetent teachers.
No more tenure. No more rubber rooms. No more excuses.
Chelsea Clinton apparently is already laying the ground work for her own political career... with an eye to being president one day. Its all quite delightful.
The Bush Dynasty is also burning. Watching Jeb fail to get anywhere is delicious.
We've had enough of Clintons' and Bushs'. Let someone else run. If the democrats really can do no better than Bill Clinton's wife then apparently they have not taken the office seriously. More is the pity.
And really, Hillary could have perhaps had it if she had so much as taken her gimme job of Sec State seriously. But she did not. She went home early while her diplomats died. She was told to not permit old Sidney access to the State Department and she did it anyway. And the email server... and the lies... so many lies.
We'll see where this goes... The FBI is furious at the lack of prosecution... obstruction from the "Justice" Department is going to have long term consequences if it is understood that the law bends in the favor of any party in power.
Really... we're getting nearer and nearer the moment where we just rip each other's eyes out of our heads from spite. And all because some people have a hard time with democracy.
Oh well... We shall see where this goes. Regardless... I shall enjoy the fires.
The drug companies can change whatever they want anywhere in the world.
Your notion of "but but but they have single payer!!!"... yeah and the drug company doesn't have to change that price.
What is more, the single payer countries generally negotiate a price for the whole country. Prices are less being dictated by your magical solution to everything and more are simply being negotiated by your health systems.
Regardless, if you opened the US up to the global market, then US drug prices would fall without having to tell anyone what they had to charge.
What is more, your example of that company price fixing... bad example... they were bypassed by a rival drug almost immediately thus negating the whole venture. That is basically a text book example of the free market slapping that aside instantly.
As to your strawman that because I don't like a given organization I would instead prefer anarchy... THIS is why I don't generally talk to ACs. You're shitheads to a man apparently. Either make an honest argument or don't waste the time of sensible people with your idiocy.
Americans pay more for drugs than do most people around the world... that is indifferent to subsides.
FDA regulations to say nothing of bans on imports of foreign drugs inflate American prices.
Beyond that, a huge portion of hospital bills do not go to doctors or medicine or medical equipment. A huge portion goes to administration. Simplifying medical paper work and streamlining hospital labor could radically lower costs.
We have test cases where shift nurses bypassed most of this stuff which had a dramatic impact on costs.
Hospital bills are going up faster than inflation for the SAME treatment. You can't blame this on insurance companies because the costs are if anything even higher for those without insurance. The costs are high because the hospitals are billing at those rates.
Get the costs where they should be and the bills will be affordable - period.
As I said, my point was sustained. Any moron can just dig his heels in when he was proven wrong and gainsay what the opposition is saying.
This is not an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Don't bother responding unless you're prepared to either drop your FUCKING STUPID position and carry on with another argument... or unless you're willing to admit you were wrong. Either way. If neither... then this is the end, twit.
So you're attempting to cover your ass once I showed that you're wrong? This is what I said:
""
But please consider the alternative here. The United Nations? Most nations in the world have a less ironclad notion of free speech than the Americans. To the contrary, the vast majority of governments desire radically restricted speech.
""
I was not saying that the solution was anything specific. Anyone with a passing grasp of English language is aware of that.
QED... you're apparently illiterate.
*yawn*
I didn't claim the UN would take over. There was a question mark in there.
I said what was the idea... the UN?... that's a question, fuckwit.
anyway, position sustained because you're apparently illiterate.
So you are doubling down on the "if Richard Nixon wanted it, then you should want it"... nah.
Out of curiosity, what are your feelings on the moon landing and 9/11? Just curious.
Economically there is no mix. They're purely capitalistic economically and thus referring to them as socialists does not mean anything economically. They've capitalists with welfare. That's what they are. The socialists generate ZERO revenue. They provide nothing of value to the economy. 100 percent of all revenue is provided by the capitalists. That is not a mix.
As to humans being involved, so you concede that the government is involved in the issues and you can't just pin it on the evil capitalists. What is more, citing a need for more government control when the issue was caused by government mismanagement is doubling down on stupid.
Socialist economies don't exist in the western world. There is no such thing as a socialist economy in the western world. Look at the companies in the so called socialist countries and tell me if they have owners, investors, stocks, bonds, dividends... etc.... See? The economies you think you can point to as successes are just capitalist systems that you're parasiting off of... nothing more.
A socialist economy would be one where the socialism were producing the wealth of that society. No such society exists in the West. Outside of the west... you could point to North Korea if you wanted to claim them... I suspect you don't want to do that though.
The economy of every western country is CAPITALISTIC.
Having welfare does not mean your economy is socialist unless the country in question doesn't operate under capitalistic principles as regards its production.
There is no western country that operates other than capitalist as regards its ECONOMY.
As to banking crisis... In every case I can point to government mismanagement so you'd have a very hard time citing the collapses as being an argument for more government control.
In 2008 for example it was the Freddie Mac/Fanny Mae situation. In the EU, the EU drove the Greek collapse with cheap debt. The examples are long.
Actually the great depression did not happen before FDR. The CRASH happened before FDR. The great depression was mostly during his presidency.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/relea...
*yawn*
Too easy.
Nah, I addressed the the UN issue and you're refusing to acknowledge it. That's just obtuse.
Position sustained.
If the continuing argument from the government is going to be "if we can technically do it then we should be able to legally do it"... then the solution is to make it so that you can't technically do it.
happy now?
That's apparently where this has to go.
Being obtuse is not a rebuttal. My last statement is sustained until you have a substantive response.
Market economies existed before our species existed an international economies do not exist for any given economy or society but because their existence profits all participants generally.
As to your belief that people in the 20th century didn't know some truth that is revealed to you... 'fraid not, grasshopper. They knew more about this stuff than you know now. They built things. And the command economies as you are quiet aware... failed. Why? Because capitalism is better. A command economy can exist and can survive. It will just be poorer.
Your systems are much the same. They can work if you do it well... but you'll be poorer. I will have a higher standard of living in my system than you will in yours.
As to Rowling, if everyone on welfare went on to do something that made the expense into an investment, then I'd be fine with it. That is the exception to the pattern and not the emblematic case. You know that. Don't debase yourself or make yourself look like a degenerate simply to try and sell an obvious deceit. It doesn't achieve the purpose you seek and it damages your own credibility. That's a double loss.
As to me being an idiot that scavenges... why? Because I don't steal other people's property while patting myself on the back that the theft was acceptable because after all rich people don't deserve anything and poverty means the poor deserve more? Comical.
As to your claim that I am projecting strawmen, to the contrary, I've been doing little more that batting YOUR straw man aside. And you apparently are incapable of having this discussion legitimately. Since I won't permit fallacious arguments you're going to attempt to accuse me of doing what you've been doing and then run away in a huff.
You're a funny boy. Now, in the premise of one person being valuable to society and another not... why should I keep you alive? What entitles you to my production besides your own incompetence? How is society profited by punishing those that produce and rewarding those that do not? You're a waste of resources. And if you got the system you dream of... it would smother you in your sleep and bury in an unmarked mass grave.
You people with your stupid Somalia reference... pick a new country... you just sound like unoriginal parrots repeating something that you clearly got poured into your ear without any personal thought in the matter.
The problem with this reference is that it conflates a "market economy" with "capitalism". It also ignores elements such as property rights etc which are required for anything but anarchy or totalitarianism.
Suggesting that your opposition is advocating anarchy or totalitarianism is at best a strawman. At best. At worst... many things. But at best it is a stupid fallacy.
But getting back to what I think is your bigger error and inadvertent admission... capitalism is not the same thing as a market economy. We've always had market economies and in fact market economies are totally unavoidable.
The Soviet Union and North Korea despite all attempts to crush the black market were/are entirely unable to stop the market economy.
You will have a market economy in any situation where X has something that Y wants and Y can get the thing that X has by giving X something that Y has in return. You can't stop that. It actually exists in nature. We have symbiotic relationships in nature where X has something in nature and Y trades for it.
THAT is the economy in Somalia... the economy that exists everywhere and cannot be destroyed by any means short of the total eradication of life itself.
Capitalism was preceded by Mercantilism.... which was preceded by a series of other systems going back into the mists of time. But EACH successful system first accepted the market economy and then out competed the previous system head to head.
The big battle between Mercantilism and Capitalism played out in the Colonial era where in the Spanish despite getting huge sums of gold were economically out performed by people selling smoked fish, tobacco, and various manufactured products.... mostly the Dutch and English.
And it is on THAT basis that Capitalism dominates the global economy. You say we have a mixed economy because we have socialism. This is not the case. Our economies are all capitalistic. That is in the West. Sweden, Norway, whatever. They're all capitalist in that the MONEY is earned through Capitalism. The economy is governed ultimately by capitalist forces.
When you say mixed, you are saying there is welfare. The Welfare just means you have a capitalist economy with welfare. The welfare generates ZERO wealth and produces ZERO product. Thus it is economically irrelevant. It produces nothing. The Capitalism produces everything. All the money the welfare systems spend comes from the capitalism. The capitalists produce and the welfare people spend. Spending someone else's money does not mean you're producing anything.
Now if you get rid of capitalism and go to a pure welfare system... what you have is a system that produce nothing but needs a great deal to keep it from starving to death. It will starve to death and fail.
We've seen this very recently in what was going on in Venezuela. They figured out how to have a water shortage in a jungle nation with vast supplies of clean fresh water literally in lakes. They ran out of toilet paper because they kept telling the guys selling the toilet paper that profit was a sin and they should sell the toilet paper at a loss.
Your system is naive. You might feel that because you have good intentions that your ideas must also be good... but you've forgotten what the road to hell is paved with... your intentions count for nothing when they cause people to starve. And they do.
If you want welfare, then you need to justify to me why I should give it to you. If I am a producer and you are a welfare slug... why am I paying you? What is in it for me? Your threats of violence should I not pay you? That only works as far as I am afraid of you. Or you might say "but in democracies I can vote"... systems that rely on welfare slugs to win elections don't actually respect the welfare slugs. They use them. And if you kee
What empires have market economies and meritocracies built?
The modern world, little one.
Now scoot... You've exhausted the patience of your elders.
It is fitting that children be ignorant... they lack the education and experience to know better. But it is an insolent child indeed that refuses to accept correction from his seniors.
Jamestown
New Harmony
An endless series of failed communes.
Your ideas are tried and they fail.
My ideas build empires.
*shoos child out of the room and locks the door.*
No, I said "the UN?" Notice the question mark... it was an example.
And it doesn't matter as has been explained previously... your rebuttal that it would be various governments is not any different from the UN because ultimately that's all the UN is in the first place. And giving things over to various corporations isn't any better either as I pointed out because corporations will censor people if it is in their financial interests to do it.
I love your final statement that the US has no control over it... then why would internationals want control over it and why would the US be on some deadline to relinquish it?
That's the final straw... you're out. Go back to the bench and wait until its your turn again. You made contact with the ball... zero times. Whiff... Whiff... Whiff.
Remarkable.
Jamestown
New Harmony
And an endless series of failed communes set up over the years that were adopted by idealistic people... and abandoned when it was realized that the system does not work.
I know you want everyone to give you things for free.
I know you don't have anything to offer anyone.
I know your great idea is "how neat it would be if there were a system where people gave me stuff and I didn't have to give anything in return for any of it.
its been tried repeatedly against our better judgement.
I'll tell you what, sport... Set up your own little society somewhere within the territorial borders of where ever. Make a commune. Have people join it voluntarily. And see if you can either self support your own needs or create goods that you can barter for whatever you want. I am very happy to let you try and wish you the best of luck.
Let me be very clear, here is where I break out the sharp knives... Don't take my stuff unless you pay me for it. You reach for my stuff and I will take you as a thief.
If you little idea of "wouldn't it be great if no one had to work but everyone got what they needed" works out... then great. But the reality is that it won't. Your concept is parasitism. You offer NOTHING of value to the people that provide everything of value to you. That is a one way relationship. Why should society feed you if you're just a waste of resources?
Your idea is naive.
*pats child on head and moves on*
Its petty tyrants seeking power over things they don't understand for the sake of the power itself. Nothing more.
They're children and rather than being treated seriously they should be patted on the head and distracted with a shinny babble that will change the subject or a little candy.
I already addressed non-government forces. You citing them again suggests that you didn't actually read what I said which renders you opinion of my position generally meaningless.
Exactly... They do this and they fuck it up... and we can bypass the whole system.
Technology of this era ultimately is liberating because it is so cheap and reproducible that elites are going to have an increasing problem controlling choke points.
Richard Nixon wanted it... so it must have been a good idea? Because Richard Nixon was well known for his good judgement?
Lolzcats.
This is the same logic that argued for the old communal societies where everyone in the community got fed regardless of whether they worked or not. Those communities went into famine without exception until they changed the policy.
The issue is that if people are paid regardless of whether they do anything, then they don't do anything.
You're attempting to subvert the merit element in our economy by saying that everyone should be given something even if they merit nothing. The this is de-evolutionary as it does not reward competence, hard work, intelligence, or wisdom... etc. Basically you can be a human slug... sitting on a couch... and the government just pays for everything for no reason. Which means the people in the economy that are productive must subsidize you for no reason.
I understand why human slugs like this idea. However, I see no reason why non-slugs should regard the opinion as anything but a self serving attempt to steal something through rhetoric.
As to banking practices, false. The issue was spending more money then their economy could justify in credit or provide for in revenue.
Overspending.
And what did they over spend on?
Social issues.
So no. That's a strike against your credibility.
As to bubbles being bad for capitalists and socialists. That's like saying that famines are bad for parasites too. The socialists only suffer because the systems they feed upon have issues occasionally.
As to the great depression, that was caused by the Federal reserve screwing with interest rates followed by FDR fucking with labor markets, commodities, and effectively stopping the recovery process. For an economy to recover after a collapse you need the bad actors to suffer and the good actors to be rewarded. This is what causes a policy shift in the economy that actually leads to a recovery because the people playing it safe eat the people that were playing it risky.