Austerity has hardened the nation's heart
zer0netgain wrote:
marshall wrote:
That's not even true. The government ultimately has the power to create the money in the first place.
FALSE. The government can print CURRENCY. It can not create monetary value from nothing unless it finds a way to take a common item and turn it into something of commercial value. Printing currency weakens the economy because currency needs to be backed by real value or it is worthless.
You seem awfully sure of yourself typing in all caps there bro. What's the source of this stubborn certainty?
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Lets go back to an agrarian society. Turn the clock back to the 19th century. Then we can repeat the boom of the 20th century.
The rule holds true. The "temporary" income tax has done nothing but hinder economic growth. It was not needed, and it indeed came to replace revenue imposed on commercial activities and placed it on the backs of those who work for a living.
Taxation does not help the economy, it slows the economy. Right now we have idiots more concerned with imposing their idea of "fairness" through tax policy when the numbers prove that lower taxes brings in more revenue for social programs.
Name one modern nation with a robust economy that does not have a progressive tax system. Its not just about "fairness". Its about what works. The economy falters when all the wealth floats to the top and there is no longer an incentive for the wealthy to invest in beneficial things because real wages aren't rising and the rate of large scale technological advance has stagnated.
Quote:
marshall wrote:
And if those with the means to help decide not to deal with the hungry? Let them starve? Mow them down with machine guns when they come for the rich with pitchforks? Society has to deal with the problem of the unemployed. If you choose not to expect violent revolt. Expect to barricade yourself in your compound and hide from the starving masses. You are a complete idiot to not get what is at stake.
If you take $100 from me to feed the hungry, not only will the hungry be lucky to get even $25 of that $100, but I no longer have that $100 to give. It is not government's job to operate a charity program...that falls upon people, and not only do people do it more effectively than any government program, but if you don't soak people with taxes, they have more ability to help those in need.
Welfare, by and large, wastes resources, and it is easily exploited by those who want something for nothing. If you are an honest person and need help, the odds are you will get little to nothing. If you are willing to lie and work the system, you can have want for nothing.
This is just total propaganda. Private charity is less effective than government programs because the income stream is unreliable. It is also miniscule compared to what government typically provides.
marshall wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
marshall wrote:
That's not even true. The government ultimately has the power to create the money in the first place.
FALSE. The government can print CURRENCY. It can not create monetary value from nothing unless it finds a way to take a common item and turn it into something of commercial value. Printing currency weakens the economy because currency needs to be backed by real value or it is worthless.
You seem awfully sure of yourself typing in all caps there bro. What's the source of this stubborn certainty?
.
He happens to be right Look what happened in German during the 1920s when they started printing money. It destroyed the economy, it destroyed the middle class and led (in part) to the rise of the Nazi parfy.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
marshall wrote:
That's not even true. The government ultimately has the power to create the money in the first place.
FALSE. The government can print CURRENCY. It can not create monetary value from nothing unless it finds a way to take a common item and turn it into something of commercial value. Printing currency weakens the economy because currency needs to be backed by real value or it is worthless.
You seem awfully sure of yourself typing in all caps there bro. What's the source of this stubborn certainty?
.
He happens to be right Look what happened in German during the 1920s when they started printing money. It destroyed the economy, it destroyed the middle class and led (in part) to the rise of the Nazi parfy.
ruveyn
FALSE. War reparations that Germany could not possibly pay are what destroyed its economy. The West decided to punish Germany for starting WWI and it worked. Inflation is usually a side effect of externally imposed scarcity. Countries are punished for not being cooperative and the result is the government has to start printing money to keep the country running. Don't get cause and effect backwards.
The_Walrus wrote:
War reparations were the major reason that Germany's economy went down the toilet, but quantitative easing didn't help. See Zimbabwe for a famous modern example.
Of course it didn't help. They were being punished by the entire outside world of which they were partly dependent on (through trade). I don't think hyperinflation is the first worry in a productive economy without resource scarcity, forced debt repayments, sanctions, or massive dysfunction. Zimbabwe has all kinds of problems before you even get to the inflation. In any case I think a progressive tax system can control inflation.
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The object is not to make the poor successful but if the rich share all that they have with the poor the poor will have the same standard of living as the rich.
That sounds like communism.
A better Idea is to make the poor able to monetarily sustain themselves.
Give a man a fish and feed him for day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
There is no such thing as "sustaining yourself" unless you go out into the wilderness and live off the land.
You are dependent on other people being willing to pay your ass to buy things you need to survive but are too stupid to know how to make yourself. If you get your legs chopped off and can no longer get yourself to and from a source of gainful employment you might as well be left to die.
You know what I mean and I'm not going to cover every detail and possible scenario just for you and your liberal cronies here.
My "scenario" demonstrates that your "teach a man to fish" analogy is fallacious. It assumes there are fish for everyone. We are not an agrarian society anymore. We don't live off the land. We survive by trading, not by growing our own food and building our own shelter out of natural elements. In order to survive on trading (capitalism) there have to be willing partners on both ends. You can't have the wealthy hoarding everything and refusing to facilitate enough trade to allow everyone gainful employment -- not without crime or revolt.
Right, we're all too worthless to do anything on our own.
Why just today I called the welfare office to ask someone if I should to go the bathroom or just sit there and shi+ myself. I wasn't sure I could make the right decision on my own.
What else can I get them to do for me, I wonder....
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The object is not to make the poor successful but if the rich share all that they have with the poor the poor will have the same standard of living as the rich.
That sounds like communism.
A better Idea is to make the poor able to monetarily sustain themselves.
Give a man a fish and feed him for day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
There is no such thing as "sustaining yourself" unless you go out into the wilderness and live off the land.
You are dependent on other people being willing to pay your ass to buy things you need to survive but are too stupid to know how to make yourself. If you get your legs chopped off and can no longer get yourself to and from a source of gainful employment you might as well be left to die.
You know what I mean and I'm not going to cover every detail and possible scenario just for you and your liberal cronies here.
My "scenario" demonstrates that your "teach a man to fish" analogy is fallacious. It assumes there are fish for everyone. We are not an agrarian society anymore. We don't live off the land. We survive by trading, not by growing our own food and building our own shelter out of natural elements. In order to survive on trading (capitalism) there have to be willing partners on both ends. You can't have the wealthy hoarding everything and refusing to facilitate enough trade to allow everyone gainful employment -- not without crime or revolt.
Right, we're all too worthless to do anything on our own.
Why just today I called the welfare office to ask someone if I should to go the bathroom or just sit there and shi+ myself. I wasn't sure I could make the right decision on my own.
What else can I get them to do for me, I wonder....
A lobotomy perhaps.
Last edited by marshall on 26 May 2013, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The object is not to make the poor successful but if the rich share all that they have with the poor the poor will have the same standard of living as the rich.
That sounds like communism.
A better Idea is to make the poor able to monetarily sustain themselves.
Give a man a fish and feed him for day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
There is no such thing as "sustaining yourself" unless you go out into the wilderness and live off the land.
You are dependent on other people being willing to pay your ass to buy things you need to survive but are too stupid to know how to make yourself. If you get your legs chopped off and can no longer get yourself to and from a source of gainful employment you might as well be left to die.
You know what I mean and I'm not going to cover every detail and possible scenario just for you and your liberal cronies here.
My "scenario" demonstrates that your "teach a man to fish" analogy is fallacious. It assumes there are fish for everyone. We are not an agrarian society anymore. We don't live off the land. We survive by trading, not by growing our own food and building our own shelter out of natural elements. In order to survive on trading (capitalism) there have to be willing partners on both ends. You can't have the wealthy hoarding everything and refusing to facilitate enough trade to allow everyone gainful employment -- not without crime or revolt.
Right, we're all too worthless to do anything on our own.
Why just today I called the welfare office to ask someone if I should to go the bathroom or just sit there and shi+ myself. I wasn't sure I could make the right decision on my own.
What else can I get them to do for me, I wonder....
A lobotomy perhaps.
By your rhetoric you seem to think everyone already has had lobotomy and cannot do anything for themselves.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The object is not to make the poor successful but if the rich share all that they have with the poor the poor will have the same standard of living as the rich.
That sounds like communism.
A better Idea is to make the poor able to monetarily sustain themselves.
Give a man a fish and feed him for day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
There is no such thing as "sustaining yourself" unless you go out into the wilderness and live off the land.
You are dependent on other people being willing to pay your ass to buy things you need to survive but are too stupid to know how to make yourself. If you get your legs chopped off and can no longer get yourself to and from a source of gainful employment you might as well be left to die.
You know what I mean and I'm not going to cover every detail and possible scenario just for you and your liberal cronies here.
My "scenario" demonstrates that your "teach a man to fish" analogy is fallacious. It assumes there are fish for everyone. We are not an agrarian society anymore. We don't live off the land. We survive by trading, not by growing our own food and building our own shelter out of natural elements. In order to survive on trading (capitalism) there have to be willing partners on both ends. You can't have the wealthy hoarding everything and refusing to facilitate enough trade to allow everyone gainful employment -- not without crime or revolt.
Right, we're all too worthless to do anything on our own.
Why just today I called the welfare office to ask someone if I should to go the bathroom or just sit there and shi+ myself. I wasn't sure I could make the right decision on my own.
What else can I get them to do for me, I wonder....
A lobotomy perhaps.
By your rhetoric you seem to think everyone already has had lobotomy and cannot do anything for themselves.
If you think you are Mr. Macho Self-Sufficient Tough Guy stop taking tax-payer money and stop buying imported s**t manufactured by slave laborers in India and Bangladesh. Also, a lobotomy would be an improvement for you since you never use your brain anyways. Less weight on your shoulders.
duncvis wrote:
Arran wrote:
Raptor wrote:
All the government needs to do is allow jobs to flourish by non-interference or at least minimal interference.
How can this guarantee that investment creates jobs, and more importantly, quality jobs? Since the late 1990s billions of pounds have been invested into property in the UK which creates very few new jobs and the bulk of wealth generated ends up in the pockets of landlords.
Human nature is like an electric current in that it follows the path of least resistance.
This. Without actual incentives, capital will simply be attracted to those areas of the country where it has the best odds of receiving the highest return, in the case of the UK that means the South East of England. Which notwithstanding limited successes in other regions is what tends to happen. The hollowing out of the British economy over the last 30 years as described ably by one poster (decently paid semi/skilled factory jobs gone to China and South Asia, all that remains being poorly paid and insecure service sector employment topped up by tax credits to approximate a living wage, and massive competition from the over qualified for jobs requiring a decent education) has left the former industrial heart of our land struggling - when all the investment is targeted on the area of the country which is already doing ok, it is no surprise that the numbers relying on state support elsewhere, and the young struggling to get work, have mushroomed in number elsewhere. Teaching people to fish is not a proper solution where there are not enough fish for folk to catch - to stretch the metaphor, we need to attract some of those fish back to our stretch of river first - and distasteful as it may be to market fundamentalists that is going to require some active interference first.
Sorry but what on earth are you talking about? care to back up that statement here as I don't think the south-east does indeed receive much capital these days apart from the capital itself. Also, what do you mean by self-induced tax payers topping up their minimum wages besides the fact they seem to be doing okay? I am actually from this part of the country and for the first part of your statement actually, the industrial side of things are not doing okay, its the worst part that is over here! if this were true, I doubt that many royal fascists or others would likewise find much work here when they don't even have a scratching post to lift a political finger to and find their niche in the market, i.e poorly paid work supplemented by ego statistical based managers who find that hard manual labour seems only to survive in poorer countries,- so lets revive this temporary back stock and create a wider national margin for growth? How is this working when all the government are doing is letting them pass through our gates without so much as a first diploma and the real citizens -the people who made the country what it is are forced to pay back the price and clean their own backsides with a non electrical toothbrush? come on, even this argument doesn't really make proper sense. Clean up the eco-system first, before you brush up on manual labour, so at least there ought to be some alternative infrastructure to how things are supposed to be managed, not through false language barriers and fake documentation.
Still, needless to say, if the queen has managed to place authority over some of her loyal subjects, maybe her people will feel some responsibility has been owed back to them after such a long time in the waiting.
Last edited by glow on 27 May 2013, 12:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
duncvis
Veteran
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,642
Location: The valleys of green and grey
Is there a version of that comment in English? I have absolutely no idea where to start with that.
_________________
I'm usually smarter than this.
www.last.fm/user/nursethescreams <<my last.fm thingy
FOR THE HORDE!
marshall wrote:
If the corporate overlords were truly self-sufficient they wouldn't be worried about falling birth rates and the erosion of "traditional values". They need the starving proles all over the world to be producing lots of spawn in order to keep unemployment high. High unemployment helps them exploit the desperation of the masses more effectively. This explains the unholy alliance between the corporate overlords and the religious right and their antagonism towards birth control and contraceptives.
Now you know. In order to beat the corporate plutocrats don't have children.
Either that or have so many children that your family can break into their houses and steal what they need.
ruveyn
