 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: The US government has a moral obligation to protect the assets of its people. It's simply being ignored
I hope Mozart will explain how an abstract entity such as a government can have a moral anything. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Leaving that issue aside, where is it written that the government is obligated to protect my assets?
The US government is a collection of human beings, who are granted a moral obligation by the US citizens who elected them, to protect and defend the US currency, the instrument through which accumulated wealth is stored in the country. The fact that you see no such obligation is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you have no personal wealth to defend? An anarchist? Destroy the country; let's start from the top?
I recall my grandfather, who was born and raised in the Sudentenland, who was drafted by the local authorities and fought for the Austrian Kaiser during the First World War. He fought on the Isonzo front and received the Iron Cross for his services. After the war, he set-up a small business in a Bavarian town. On one occasion he loaned a friend of his 'x' amount of Reichsmarks, to be paid back in 18 months or so, with interest. During this time the German Weimar Republic was hit with some of the highest inflation ever seen in the western world. It was unbelievable. The German government had allowed the printing presses to run wild. Just as the Obama administration is using the cover of a Wall Street crises to possibly force hyperinflation in this country, so too did the Weimar Republic boys use the excuse of the confiscatory obligations of the Versaille Treaty to begin destroying the basic currency. My grandfather's friend came back into his store after the 18 months, after the German Reichsmark had climbed by over 3000% percent or more, and calmly, and without embarassment, payed him the exact amount of money he owed, plus interest. It was but a mere fraction, a pittance, as to what the value of the loan was orignally. Moral? It wasn't 'his' fault that the value of the Reichsmark plummeted.
The fact that you, a comitted communist/socialist/whatever, despises the accumulated wealth of the citizens of this country, is hardly surprising. After all, demanding and grabbing all you can from your neighbor's hard work is the very definition of communism/socialism.
Mozart
Now, now, Mozart, these little outbursts don't advance your cause. While your grandfather was setting up his little shop, my grandfather was expanding his glass factories. When the bottom dropped out of the economy in the Great Depression, he used his accumulated wealth to leverage the purchase of American blue-chips, principally steel, rail and auto at rock-bottom prices. World War II made him a millionaire many times over, allowing him to expand into radio & TV broadcasting and suburban real estate.
I mention this bit of family history to show you that I am neither unfamiliar with nor inimical to accumulated wealth and the people (such as I) who hold it. Like many half-educated pundits, you confuse Lenninism (Communism) with Marxism.
As for grabbing the fruits of one's neighbor's hard work, that is the very definition of capitalism, not of socialism. Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today.
I used to think you were somewhat better informed as well as better mannered than than the ad hominem attack and garbled economic analysis in your last post would suggest. Perhaps your second footman is posting over your name again?
|
maxim
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Sofia, Bulgaria |
| Posts: | 8928 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
It's generally an ugly sight to see two human beings comparing wealth, but this was just splendid. Capitalists usually defend their classism and prejudice with the fact that so many of their opponents aren't part of the capitalist class and therefore can't appreciate their avid attachment to "possessions".
It's truly unbelievable how the most intelligent creature on Earth can have such a limited worldview throughout its entire life.
|
goldrick
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 10:54 pm |
|
George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: The US government has a moral obligation to protect the assets of its people. It's simply being ignored
I hope Mozart will explain how an abstract entity such as a government can have a moral anything. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Leaving that issue aside, where is it written that the government is obligated to protect my assets?
The US government is a collection of human beings, who are granted a moral obligation by the US citizens who elected them, to protect and defend the US currency, the instrument through which accumulated wealth is stored in the country. The fact that you see no such obligation is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you have no personal wealth to defend? An anarchist? Destroy the country; let's start from the top?
I recall my grandfather, who was born and raised in the Sudentenland, who was drafted by the local authorities and fought for the Austrian Kaiser during the First World War. He fought on the Isonzo front and received the Iron Cross for his services. After the war, he set-up a small business in a Bavarian town. On one occasion he loaned a friend of his 'x' amount of Reichsmarks, to be paid back in 18 months or so, with interest. During this time the German Weimar Republic was hit with some of the highest inflation ever seen in the western world. It was unbelievable. The German government had allowed the printing presses to run wild. Just as the Obama administration is using the cover of a Wall Street crises to possibly force hyperinflation in this country, so too did the Weimar Republic boys use the excuse of the confiscatory obligations of the Versaille Treaty to begin destroying the basic currency. My grandfather's friend came back into his store after the 18 months, after the German Reichsmark had climbed by over 3000% percent or more, and calmly, and without embarassment, payed him the exact amount of money he owed, plus interest. It was but a mere fraction, a pittance, as to what the value of the loan was orignally. Moral? It wasn't 'his' fault that the value of the Reichsmark plummeted.
The fact that you, a comitted communist/socialist/whatever, despises the accumulated wealth of the citizens of this country, is hardly surprising. After all, demanding and grabbing all you can from your neighbor's hard work is the very definition of communism/socialism.
Mozart
Now, now, Mozart, these little outbursts don't advance your cause. While your grandfather was setting up his little shop, my grandfather was expanding his glass factories. When the bottom dropped out of the economy in the Great Depression, he used his accumulated wealth to leverage the purchase of American blue-chips, principally steel, rail and auto at rock-bottom prices. World War II made him a millionaire many times over, allowing him to expand into radio & TV broadcasting and suburban real estate.
I mention this bit of family history to show you that I am neither unfamiliar with nor inimical to accumulated wealth and the people (such as I) who hold it. Like many half-educated pundits, you confuse Lenninism (Communism) with Marxism.
As for grabbing the fruits of one's neighbor's hard work, that is the very definition of capitalism, not of socialism. Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today.
I used to think you were somewhat better informed as well as better mannered than than the ad hominem attack and garbled economic analysis in your last post would suggest. Perhaps your second footman is posting over your name again?
OUCH! This will hurt moxart ----WELL SAID BY GEORGE! Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today. Another nail in your coffin,but this guy is not made of paper clips--moxart is still on his foots Lets hear some applause for this game boy--moxart ! we await your reply ?
|
WA Mozart
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: The US government has a moral obligation to protect the assets of its people. It's simply being ignored
I hope Mozart will explain how an abstract entity such as a government can have a moral anything. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Leaving that issue aside, where is it written that the government is obligated to protect my assets?
The US government is a collection of human beings, who are granted a moral obligation by the US citizens who elected them, to protect and defend the US currency, the instrument through which accumulated wealth is stored in the country. The fact that you see no such obligation is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you have no personal wealth to defend? An anarchist? Destroy the country; let's start from the top?
I recall my grandfather, who was born and raised in the Sudentenland, who was drafted by the local authorities and fought for the Austrian Kaiser during the First World War. He fought on the Isonzo front and received the Iron Cross for his services. After the war, he set-up a small business in a Bavarian town. On one occasion he loaned a friend of his 'x' amount of Reichsmarks, to be paid back in 18 months or so, with interest. During this time the German Weimar Republic was hit with some of the highest inflation ever seen in the western world. It was unbelievable. The German government had allowed the printing presses to run wild. Just as the Obama administration is using the cover of a Wall Street crises to possibly force hyperinflation in this country, so too did the Weimar Republic boys use the excuse of the confiscatory obligations of the Versaille Treaty to begin destroying the basic currency. My grandfather's friend came back into his store after the 18 months, after the German Reichsmark had climbed by over 3000% percent or more, and calmly, and without embarassment, payed him the exact amount of money he owed, plus interest. It was but a mere fraction, a pittance, as to what the value of the loan was orignally. Moral? It wasn't 'his' fault that the value of the Reichsmark plummeted.
The fact that you, a comitted communist/socialist/whatever, despises the accumulated wealth of the citizens of this country, is hardly surprising. After all, demanding and grabbing all you can from your neighbor's hard work is the very definition of communism/socialism.
Mozart
Now, now, Mozart, these little outbursts don't advance your cause. While your grandfather was setting up his little shop, my grandfather was expanding his glass factories. When the bottom dropped out of the economy in the Great Depression, he used his accumulated wealth to leverage the purchase of American blue-chips, principally steel, rail and auto at rock-bottom prices. World War II made him a millionaire many times over, allowing him to expand into radio & TV broadcasting and suburban real estate.
I mention this bit of family history to show you that I am neither unfamiliar with nor inimical to accumulated wealth and the people (such as I) who hold it. Like many half-educated pundits, you confuse Lenninism (Communism) with Marxism.
As for grabbing the fruits of one's neighbor's hard work, that is the very definition of capitalism, not of socialism. Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today.
I used to think you were somewhat better informed as well as better mannered than than the ad hominem attack and garbled economic analysis in your last post would suggest. Perhaps your second footman is posting over your name again?
No ad hominem attack here, old boy. Just stating the obvious.
Along with your very bizarre understanding of what 'socialists' believe, your understanding of fundamental economics is also surely flawed. Pay attention to the numbers. Numbers don't lie ( get it? ), especially when they concern debt. We are headed into some very uncertain times there fella. The fact that you don't believe the scuttlebutt being proffered here is OK. That's fine. But don't tell us that you haven't been warned. The coming economic disaster will be unlike any other seen in the post industrial age. It will be ugly, and it will be brutal. The thread that we have started here, and the interesting comments being posted to it, is exactly what the news media should be covering. But they're not. That, in and of itself, is fascinating. 'The Engine' guy isn't lying. Those are real debt numbers, and they're not getting any better. Unfortunetely, there is not much anyone can do to stop it. It's become a national insanity. Everyone with vision can see the train wreck coming, but all are helpless to stop it.
Mozart
Last edited on Mon Sep 14th, 2009 11:25 pm by WA Mozart
|
goldrick
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: The US government has a moral obligation to protect the assets of its people. It's simply being ignored
I hope Mozart will explain how an abstract entity such as a government can have a moral anything. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Leaving that issue aside, where is it written that the government is obligated to protect my assets?
The US government is a collection of human beings, who are granted a moral obligation by the US citizens who elected them, to protect and defend the US currency, the instrument through which accumulated wealth is stored in the country. The fact that you see no such obligation is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you have no personal wealth to defend? An anarchist? Destroy the country; let's start from the top?
I recall my grandfather, who was born and raised in the Sudentenland, who was drafted by the local authorities and fought for the Austrian Kaiser during the First World War. He fought on the Isonzo front and received the Iron Cross for his services. After the war, he set-up a small business in a Bavarian town. On one occasion he loaned a friend of his 'x' amount of Reichsmarks, to be paid back in 18 months or so, with interest. During this time the German Weimar Republic was hit with some of the highest inflation ever seen in the western world. It was unbelievable. The German government had allowed the printing presses to run wild. Just as the Obama administration is using the cover of a Wall Street crises to possibly force hyperinflation in this country, so too did the Weimar Republic boys use the excuse of the confiscatory obligations of the Versaille Treaty to begin destroying the basic currency. My grandfather's friend came back into his store after the 18 months, after the German Reichsmark had climbed by over 3000% percent or more, and calmly, and without embarassment, payed him the exact amount of money he owed, plus interest. It was but a mere fraction, a pittance, as to what the value of the loan was orignally. Moral? It wasn't 'his' fault that the value of the Reichsmark plummeted.
The fact that you, a comitted communist/socialist/whatever, despises the accumulated wealth of the citizens of this country, is hardly surprising. After all, demanding and grabbing all you can from your neighbor's hard work is the very definition of communism/socialism.
Mozart
Now, now, Mozart, these little outbursts don't advance your cause. While your grandfather was setting up his little shop, my grandfather was expanding his glass factories. When the bottom dropped out of the economy in the Great Depression, he used his accumulated wealth to leverage the purchase of American blue-chips, principally steel, rail and auto at rock-bottom prices. World War II made him a millionaire many times over, allowing him to expand into radio & TV broadcasting and suburban real estate.
I mention this bit of family history to show you that I am neither unfamiliar with nor inimical to accumulated wealth and the people (such as I) who hold it. Like many half-educated pundits, you confuse Lenninism (Communism) with Marxism.
As for grabbing the fruits of one's neighbor's hard work, that is the very definition of capitalism, not of socialism. Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today.
I used to think you were somewhat better informed as well as better mannered than than the ad hominem attack and garbled economic analysis in your last post would suggest. Perhaps your second footman is posting over your name again?
No ad hominem attack here, old boy. Just stating the obvious.
Along with your very bizarre understanding of what 'socialists' believe, your understanding of fundamental economics is also surely flawed. Pay attention to the numbers. Numbers don't lie ( get it? ), especially when they concern debt. We are headed into some very uncertain times there fella. The fact that you don't believe the scuttlebutt being proffered here is OK. That's fine. But don't tell us that you haven't been warned. The coming economic disaster will be unlike any other seen in the post industrial age. It will be ugly, and it will be brutal. The thread that we have started here, and the interesting comments being posted to it, is exactly what the news media should be covering. But they're not. That, in and of itself, is fascinating. 'The Engine' guy isn't lying. Those are real debt numbers, and they're not getting any better. Unfortunetely, there is not much anyone can do to stop it. It's become a national insanity. Everyone with vision can see the train wreck coming, but all are helpless to stop it.
Mozart
Well -now you being on the level of Milton Friedman --the wimp-you are brain dead to the fundementals of economics,which if I had time I would certainly give you some indicators---but you are frightening the children-- But don't tell us that you haven't been warned. The coming economic disaster will be unlike any other seen in the post industrial age. It will be ugly, and it will be brutal. The thread that we have started here, and the interesting comments being posted to it, is exactly what the news media should be covering. But they're not. now lets say what you have written is TRUE The question to be asked is Why is the controlled media NOT TELLING US,WHAT YOU SAY ,THEY SHOULD BE TELLING US Are you implying that America--the land of the free, is now a totalitarian corporate state shame on you---do not believe half the lies you hear these days Also Milton tell is ,in simple plain English WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SOCIALISTPHILOSOPHY You do know it is a philosophy
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 12:08 am |
|
WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: If I may...
"Look where the US Debt/GDP ratio was at the peak of WW2. We still came out ok."
This is the reasoning the we all received from the Bushbots for the last 8 years. Mind you, I do believe that the US monetary system and with it the US dollar will soon only be part of the history books. One world currency, One world government, good by The United States of America.
Conspiracy? You betcha ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif) 
Er, are you hopping for another war?
What brought the United States back from the brink of disaster was the complete collapse of all of Europe and Japan. Europe needed to be rebuilt, and the American economy benefitted tremendously from the institution of the Marshall Plan.
Seond, if you look at your silly chart, you will note that the little red line ends at about 85% or so, in February of this year! The actual results were probably far worse in that US revenue's vs expenditures are not accounted for until the data is published 3 months after the fact. That line, the little red line, is probably already approaching, or above, the 120% marker. With each passing day it's getting worse and worse. The pinhead spending in Washington is jumping off the charts, while the actual US revenue numbers are dropping dramatically. You ain't seen nuttin yet.
Is there a war around the corner? Should we start bombing German cities again just so that we can fix-em-up? hmmm? We're gonna need more than a war to get outta this one.
Mozart
"Er, are you hopping for another war?"
Did you forget about Iraq and Afghanistan already? ![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
I'm not hoping for anything Mozart. I'm just stating what will be. The US dollar is done. The North American Union will follow and/or after that One world currency, One World Government.
How many on this forum, "mainstream" members such as yourself, have stated their concern about it already. Keep clinging to your reality Mozart and forget all the rest. And maybe it will all go away.
RIP
|
maxim
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Sofia, Bulgaria |
| Posts: | 8928 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 10:34 am |
|
WA Mozart wrote: Along with your very bizarre understanding of what 'socialists' believe, your understanding of fundamental economics is also surely flawed. Numbers don't lie ( get it? ), especially when they concern debt.
You're probably referring to "fundamental understanding of economics". No, even Greenspan got that wrong. But you know better than him... his deregulation can't even lick the boots of your deregulation. You know what the free market's all about. For several years now, you've been trying to explain how sound and indestructible it is, and how debts don't matter since the GDP's going so strong (mainly as a result of bubbles and overconsumption)... but it's too hard on the brain to think about what caused the bubbles, the overconsumption and debt... (it starts with "C" and ands in "apitalism"). Let's blame Obama the Socialist for... erm... continuing Bush's bailout... no, that's not right... Blame China... No, Sweden. Gotta blame someone!
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 01:57 pm |
|
Today's update:
Date National Debt (B) Interest (B) Int Rate % of tax revenue
9/15/2009 11,811 335.019 2.836% 33.50% 19,077,062 unemp
Last edited on Tue Sep 15th, 2009 02:01 pm by The Engine
|
WA Mozart
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 02:17 pm |
|
robertr2000 wrote: WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: "Er, are you hopping for another war?"
Did you forget about Iraq and Afghanistan already?
I'm not hoping for anything Mozart. I'm just stating what will be. The US dollar is done. The North American Union will follow and/or after that One world currency, One World Government.
How many on this forum, "mainstream" members such as yourself, have stated their concern about it already. Keep clinging to your reality Mozart and forget all the rest. And maybe it will all go away.
RIP
Are you comparing a 'world war' and the subsequent Marshall Plan with what is going-on today in Iraq/Afghanistan? Really? How very silly.
One world currency? One world government?
It will never, ever, happen.
Mozart
|
WA Mozart
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 02:26 pm |
|
maxim wrote: WA Mozart wrote: Along with your very bizarre understanding of what 'socialists' believe, your understanding of fundamental economics is also surely flawed. Numbers don't lie ( get it? ), especially when they concern debt.
You're probably referring to "fundamental understanding of economics". No, even Greenspan got that wrong. But you know better than him... his deregulation can't even lick the boots of your deregulation. You know what the free market's all about. For several years now, you've been trying to explain how sound and indestructible it is, and how debts don't matter since the GDP's going so strong (mainly as a result of bubbles and overconsumption)... but it's too hard on the brain to think about what caused the bubbles, the overconsumption and debt... (it starts with "C" and ands in "apitalism"). Let's blame Obama the Socialist for... erm... continuing Bush's bailout... no, that's not right... Blame China... No, Sweden. Gotta blame someone!
How about Bulgaria? I think, perhaps, they should be blamed too. Yup.  .
"his deregulation can't lick the boots of your deregulation."
Huh? What? Not even Alan Greenspan, in his much younger days, would have any idea as to the point you're trying to make.  .
Mozart
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 03:06 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: The US government has a moral obligation to protect the assets of its people. It's simply being ignored
I hope Mozart will explain how an abstract entity such as a government can have a moral anything. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Leaving that issue aside, where is it written that the government is obligated to protect my assets?
The US government is a collection of human beings, who are granted a moral obligation by the US citizens who elected them, to protect and defend the US currency, the instrument through which accumulated wealth is stored in the country. The fact that you see no such obligation is simply ludicrous. Perhaps you have no personal wealth to defend? An anarchist? Destroy the country; let's start from the top?
I recall my grandfather, who was born and raised in the Sudentenland, who was drafted by the local authorities and fought for the Austrian Kaiser during the First World War. He fought on the Isonzo front and received the Iron Cross for his services. After the war, he set-up a small business in a Bavarian town. On one occasion he loaned a friend of his 'x' amount of Reichsmarks, to be paid back in 18 months or so, with interest. During this time the German Weimar Republic was hit with some of the highest inflation ever seen in the western world. It was unbelievable. The German government had allowed the printing presses to run wild. Just as the Obama administration is using the cover of a Wall Street crises to possibly force hyperinflation in this country, so too did the Weimar Republic boys use the excuse of the confiscatory obligations of the Versaille Treaty to begin destroying the basic currency. My grandfather's friend came back into his store after the 18 months, after the German Reichsmark had climbed by over 3000% percent or more, and calmly, and without embarassment, payed him the exact amount of money he owed, plus interest. It was but a mere fraction, a pittance, as to what the value of the loan was orignally. Moral? It wasn't 'his' fault that the value of the Reichsmark plummeted.
The fact that you, a comitted communist/socialist/whatever, despises the accumulated wealth of the citizens of this country, is hardly surprising. After all, demanding and grabbing all you can from your neighbor's hard work is the very definition of communism/socialism.
Mozart
Now, now, Mozart, these little outbursts don't advance your cause. While your grandfather was setting up his little shop, my grandfather was expanding his glass factories. When the bottom dropped out of the economy in the Great Depression, he used his accumulated wealth to leverage the purchase of American blue-chips, principally steel, rail and auto at rock-bottom prices. World War II made him a millionaire many times over, allowing him to expand into radio & TV broadcasting and suburban real estate.
I mention this bit of family history to show you that I am neither unfamiliar with nor inimical to accumulated wealth and the people (such as I) who hold it. Like many half-educated pundits, you confuse Lenninism (Communism) with Marxism.
As for grabbing the fruits of one's neighbor's hard work, that is the very definition of capitalism, not of socialism. Socialists believe that wealth is created by hard work and that is the people who do the hard work who ought to profit by it. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that because their grandfathers worked hard and thus accumulated capital, they are entitled to skim off the lion's share of the wealth created by the workers of today.
I used to think you were somewhat better informed as well as better mannered than than the ad hominem attack and garbled economic analysis in your last post would suggest. Perhaps your second footman is posting over your name again?
No ad hominem attack here, old boy. Just stating the obvious.
Along with your very bizarre understanding of what 'socialists' believe, your understanding of fundamental economics is also surely flawed. Pay attention to the numbers. Numbers don't lie ( get it? ), especially when they concern debt. We are headed into some very uncertain times there fella. The fact that you don't believe the scuttlebutt being proffered here is OK. That's fine. But don't tell us that you haven't been warned. The coming economic disaster will be unlike any other seen in the post industrial age. It will be ugly, and it will be brutal. The thread that we have started here, and the interesting comments being posted to it, is exactly what the news media should be covering. But they're not. That, in and of itself, is fascinating. 'The Engine' guy isn't lying. Those are real debt numbers, and they're not getting any better. Unfortunetely, there is not much anyone can do to stop it. It's become a national insanity. Everyone with vision can see the train wreck coming, but all are helpless to stop it.
Mozart
As a Marxist and a socialist, I am pretty well positioned to know what we believe; more so surely than one who cannot distinguish between Communists and socialists. The key concept here is the labor theory of value. We believe that it is labor which produces wealth. Capital is merely freeze-dried labor, the wealth produced by someone else in the past.
We believe that labor should be justly rewarded; skimming off a big piece of the wealth created by a worker to feed the insatiable demands of capital is unjust. I enjoy an annual income that is quite lavish by anyone's standards simply because my grandfather made a lot of money. I don't work to get this wealth, it comes to me through interest and dividends out of the wealth created by the sweat of working people employed in the companies which I own or lend money to. This does not seem right to me. I work hard every day, not because I need the money but because I enjoy it. I hate the idea of some guy riding free on my sweat. I don't mind paying taxes because I vote for the government and the money I pay goes to the common good.
Communist do not believe, as do Marxists, that socialism develops through the democratic process in advanced economies. Communists believe that a small band of ruthless revolutionaries can take over a government and fast-forward the economy from whatever state it may be in to socialism through a process Lenin called "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Marxists view this as a blood-soaked folly.
|
maxim
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Sofia, Bulgaria |
| Posts: | 8928 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: "his deregulation can't lick the boots of your deregulation."
Huh? What?
Well, you've been moaning lately about the state of the US economy, so you probably have your own idea of how America could have avoided the problem. I figured since you're such a fan of Hayek and Friedman who've always promoted deregulation, and if old Alan's been promoting it for close to 20 years, and if Bernanke's also a fan, you must have some better idea of deregulation than all those guys. So let's hear it. Thing is, you were sure confident about all the debts and deficits until 2007, so I guess you don't believe in root causes. Then my question is: if you were in charge in January 2008, how could you have averted the crisis?
|
WA Mozart
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 04:47 pm |
|
George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote:
As a Marxist and a socialist, I am pretty well positioned to know what we believe; more so surely than one who cannot distinguish between Communists and socialists. The key concept here is the labor theory of value. We believe that it is labor which produces wealth. Capital is merely freeze-dried labor, the wealth produced by someone else in the past.
We believe that labor should be justly rewarded; skimming off a big piece of the wealth created by a worker to feed the insatiable demands of capital is unjust. I enjoy an annual income that is quite lavish by anyone's standards simply because my grandfather made a lot of money. I don't work to get this wealth, it comes to me through interest and dividends out of the wealth created by the sweat of working people employed in the companies which I own or lend money to. This does not seem right to me. I work hard every day, not because I need the money but because I enjoy it. I hate the idea of some guy riding free on my sweat. I don't mind paying taxes because I vote for the government and the money I pay goes to the common good.
Communist do not believe, as do Marxists, that socialism develops through the democratic process in advanced economies. Communists believe that a small band of ruthless revolutionaries can take over a government and fast-forward the economy from whatever state it may be in to socialism through a process Lenin called "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Marxists view this as a blood-soaked folly.
During my college days I recall a fascinating lecture by a Professor of political science, a noted Marxist scholar, as to how Lenin, a communist, justified his complete transfiguartion of a poor, agragrian Russian society to the final stage of Marxism in just one giant leap. It didn't work, of course. The dilemma to Marxist historians is whether or not Marx himself would have agreed with Lenin's reinterpretation of the dialectic. Also, would Marx have agreed with Lenin's policy of 'breaking a few eggs,' which Lenin did in abundance. According to this Marxist scholar, there is little doubt in his mind that Karl Marx would have agreed. He, Marx, may have been horrified as to what Lenin actually did, but his writings leave little doubt that even Marx's ironclad principles laid out in Das Kapital could be, should be, molded according to current circumstances. In other words, Karl Marx would have agreed to Lenin 'skipping a few stages' in his quest to mold a communist society, and thus 'breaking a few eggs' in the process.
Furthermore, I doubt very much that any advanced economy would garner a majority of voters to structure a new Marxist economy. Doubt it. But, even were that to be the case, what happens if people become unhappy as to the new society they created? Vote em out? Go back to being capitalists? The history of such quasi-communist/socialist society's leads one to the inescapable conclusion that once in power, socialist rarely give it up under any circumstances.
Mozart
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 04:48 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: "Er, are you hopping for another war?"
Did you forget about Iraq and Afghanistan already?
I'm not hoping for anything Mozart. I'm just stating what will be. The US dollar is done. The North American Union will follow and/or after that One world currency, One World Government.
How many on this forum, "mainstream" members such as yourself, have stated their concern about it already. Keep clinging to your reality Mozart and forget all the rest. And maybe it will all go away.
RIP
Are you comparing a 'world war' and the subsequent Marshall Plan with what is going-on today in Iraq/Afghanistan? Really? How very silly.
One world currency? One world government?
It will never, ever, happen.
Mozart
[Bookmarked]
"Are you comparing a 'world war' and the subsequent Marshall Plan with what is going-on today in Iraq/Afghanistan? Really? How very silly."
How many examples would you like of "you side" doing it? I suppose you missed the part where I was making fun of those on the "right":
"Look where the US Debt/GDP ratio was at the peak of WW2. We still came out ok." -- This is the reasoning the we all received from the Bushbots for the last 8 years.
I guess I have to announce now whenever I'm playing the devils advocate
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: Today's update:
Date National Debt (B) Interest (B) Int Rate % of tax revenue
9/15/2009 11,811 335.019 2.836% 33.50% 19,077,062 unemp
If the current trends continue, stats 1 year from today will be as follows:
9/15/2010 15,000 (15 trillion in debt), 990.000 (990 billion in interest on debt) interest rate on debt=6.60%. 99.0% of all tax revenue (a conservative estimate, without consideration of a lower tax revenue) 22,727,000 unemployed
Last edited on Tue Sep 15th, 2009 05:15 pm by The Engine
|
WA Mozart
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 06:38 pm |
|
robertr2000 wrote: WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: WA Mozart wrote: robertr2000 wrote: [Bookmarked]
"Are you comparing a 'world war' and the subsequent Marshall Plan with what is going-on today in Iraq/Afghanistan? Really? How very silly."
How many examples would you like of "you side" doing it? I suppose you missed the part where I was making fun of those on the "right":
"Look where the US Debt/GDP ratio was at the peak of WW2. We still came out ok." -- This is the reasoning the we all received from the Bushbots for the last 8 years.
I guess I have to announce now whenever I'm playing the devils advocate
"Look where the US Debt/GDP ratio was at the peak of WW2. We still came out ok."
No. I don't ever recall making such a statement. The argument is as follows:
The first thing that one needs to understand about the US economy is that since the inception of the New Deal, America has slowly, but inexorably, drifted into a semi-socialist economy. You betcha. Not like the Europeans, of course. But, over time, we have enacted enormous transfer of wealth programs. So much so that today, the President of the United States, has only the power to control less than 15% of his own budget. That's it. I'm not kidding. The rest is made-up of massive entitlement programs, ...Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterens Benefits etc, etc. It goes on year after year, increase after increase. It's unstoppable.
Yup, the Bush administration did indeed have budget deficits. Yup, those deficits did indeed transfer over to the total US debt category. Much of those deficits were as a direct result of the increase in the massive entitlement spending laid down as law by previous Democrat-passed legislation. Pork Barrel spending also contributed to the deficit. So did the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, but to a much lesser degree than you imagine. It's the mandatory entitlement spending which breaks the budget year after year. You must understand that.
However, the deficits during the those 8 years was indeed manageable. The total budget deficits incurred during the Bush years, when compared to the 'growth' in the US GDP, was thus ameliorated. It wasn't good. No budget deficit is good. But when compared to the actual growth in the US economy, the budget deficits played a minor role in the US economy. In the year 2007 the US budget deficit was almost eliminated by the massive amounts of taxes pouring into the Internal Revenue Service by a booming economy. That's what 'growth' does.
Things are very much different today. With the passage of an inncredibly stupid so-called stimulus bill in February, the month-to-month budget deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. One would think that with a shrinking economy the government would cut-back on its spending outlays. No. The very opposite is taking place. IRS revenues are dropping precipitously, but government spending is going through the roof. Take a hard look at "Engine's" numbers. The end result will be catastrophic. The world, and in particular the Chinese, have taken note, ...and are aghast. That's why commodity prices are going-up, and will continue to go up for the foreseeable future. We've elected a buffoon as President of the United States, along with his loony minions, at exactly the wrong time and the wrong place in our history.
Mozart
Last edited on Tue Sep 15th, 2009 06:40 pm by WA Mozart
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote: George Aligator wrote: WA Mozart wrote:
As a Marxist and a socialist, I am pretty well positioned to know what we believe; more so surely than one who cannot distinguish between Communists and socialists. The key concept here is the labor theory of value. We believe that it is labor which produces wealth. Capital is merely freeze-dried labor, the wealth produced by someone else in the past.
We believe that labor should be justly rewarded; skimming off a big piece of the wealth created by a worker to feed the insatiable demands of capital is unjust. I enjoy an annual income that is quite lavish by anyone's standards simply because my grandfather made a lot of money. I don't work to get this wealth, it comes to me through interest and dividends out of the wealth created by the sweat of working people employed in the companies which I own or lend money to. This does not seem right to me. I work hard every day, not because I need the money but because I enjoy it. I hate the idea of some guy riding free on my sweat. I don't mind paying taxes because I vote for the government and the money I pay goes to the common good.
Communist do not believe, as do Marxists, that socialism develops through the democratic process in advanced economies. Communists believe that a small band of ruthless revolutionaries can take over a government and fast-forward the economy from whatever state it may be in to socialism through a process Lenin called "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Marxists view this as a blood-soaked folly.
During my college days I recall a fascinating lecture by a Professor of political science, a noted Marxist scholar, as to how Lenin, a communist, justified his complete transfiguartion of a poor, agragrian Russian society to the final stage of Marxism in just one giant leap. It didn't work, of course. The dilemma to Marxist historians is whether or not Marx himself would have agreed with Lenin's reinterpretation of the dialectic. Also, would Marx have agreed with Lenin's policy of 'breaking a few eggs,' which Lenin did in abundance. According to this Marxist scholar, there is little doubt in his mind that Karl Marx would have agreed. He, Marx, may have been horrified as to what Lenin actually did, but his writings leave little doubt that even Marx's ironclad principles laid out in Das Kapital could be, should be, molded according to current circumstances. In other words, Karl Marx would have agreed to Lenin 'skipping a few stages' in his quest to mold a communist society, and thus 'breaking a few eggs' in the process.
Furthermore, I doubt very much that any advanced economy would garner a majority of voters to structure a new Marxist economy. Doubt it. But, even were that to be the case, what happens if people become unhappy as to the new society they created? Vote em out? Go back to being capitalists? The history of such quasi-communist/socialist society's leads one to the inescapable conclusion that once in power, socialist rarely give it up under any circumstances.
Mozart
It is difficult to take seriously speculation about what "Marx would have done." Since I never dated Karl personally, I have no recourse but to stick to his writings. In those writings, Marx repeatedly and clearly states that "democracy is the path to socialism."
If you step back for a moment from fevered speculation about the horrors of Bolshevism and think about Marx's place in the philosophical pantheon, ie. Hegel's roomate in the German Idealist dorm, it becomes clear that Marx was not a political tactician like Lenin, but a philospher of history.
Whether one agrees with him or not, Marx concerned himself with the broad evolution of economic structures and their effects on society over long periods of time. The notion that these large-scale forces could be successfully yanked around by a coup d'etat was absurd to him and to his followers in socialist circles in both Germany and England.
The tragic reality that, after a near-century of mass murder and terror, Lenin and his disciples in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere find their economies back pretty much to where they started is empirical evidence that Karl had it right.
More important than biographical speculation is the labor theory of value. Not only Marx, but all socialists hold that it is labor which creates value. Capital is a form of mummified labor, it is transferable wealth. Capitalism siphons off a large part of the value created by workers in order to reward non-workers (capitalists). This seems pretty obvious, even to supporters of capitalism.
I enjoy a rather generous income without doing anything to earn it because I hold some of the capital created by my grandfather. This seems to me, as a socialist, fundamentally unfair. For an advocate of capitalism to accuse socialists of robbing others is the height of ironic arrogance.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 01:37 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: The Engine wrote: Today's update:
Date National Debt (B) Interest (B) Int Rate % of tax revenue
9/15/2009 11,811 335.019 2.836% 33.50% 19,077,062 unemp
If the current trends continue, stats 1 year from today will be as follows:
9/15/2010 15,000 (15 trillion in debt), 990.000 (990 billion in interest on debt) interest rate on debt=6.60%. 99.0% of all tax revenue (a conservative estimate, without consideration of a lower tax revenue) 22,727,000 unemployed
Today's update:
9/16/2009-National debt=11,815 billion. Interest-336.352 billion (33.64% of all taxes revenue). Interest rate 2.847% (interest rate was 2.64% three weeks ago)
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: The Engine wrote: The Engine wrote: Today's update:
Date National Debt (B) Interest (B) Int Rate % of tax revenue
9/15/2009 11,811 335.019 2.836% 33.50% 19,077,062 unemp
If the current trends continue, stats 1 year from today will be as follows:
9/15/2010 15,000 (15 trillion in debt), 990.000 (990 billion in interest on debt) interest rate on debt=6.60%. 99.0% of all tax revenue (a conservative estimate, without consideration of a lower tax revenue) 22,727,000 unemployed
Today's update:
9/16/2009-National debt=11,815 billion. Interest-336.352 billion (33.64% of all taxes revenue). Interest rate 2.847% (interest rate was 2.64% three weeks ago)
With breathless glee theEngine informs us that interest on T-bills has climed an astounding .0023 in three weeks. Wow! That is almost a quarter of 1%!
I suspect it hasn't occured to the distinguished economist that the force behind this rise is the booming recovery of the USA under Obama. Investors now feel more optimistic about the stock market and are putting their money back into it. This causes the Treasury to have to pay a tiny, tiny bit more interest to attract investors.
Even good news is bad news to the Tea Baggies. I wonder how many of these rubes have ever bought a Treasury bill. What a joke!
Last edited on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 03:33 pm by George Aligator
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
George Aligator wrote: The Engine wrote: The Engine wrote: The Engine wrote: Today's update:
Date National Debt (B) Interest (B) Int Rate % of tax revenue
9/15/2009 11,811 335.019 2.836% 33.50% 19,077,062 unemp
If the current trends continue, stats 1 year from today will be as follows:
9/15/2010 15,000 (15 trillion in debt), 990.000 (990 billion in interest on debt) interest rate on debt=6.60%. 99.0% of all tax revenue (a conservative estimate, without consideration of a lower tax revenue) 22,727,000 unemployed
Today's update:
9/16/2009-National debt=11,815 billion. Interest-336.352 billion (33.64% of all taxes revenue). Interest rate 2.847% (interest rate was 2.64% three weeks ago)
With breathless glee theEngine informs us that interest on T-bills has climed an astounding .0023 in three weeks. Wow! That is almost a quarter of 1%!
I suspect it hasn't occured to the distinguished economist that the force behind this rise is the booming recovery of the USA under Obama. Investors now feel more optimistic about the stock market and are putting their money back into it. This causes the Treasury to have to pay a tiny, tiny bit more interest to attract investors.
Even good news is bad news to the Tea Baggies. I wonder how many of these rubes have ever bought a Treasury bill. What a joke!
First of all, there is no "glee" in my tone. It is more of a solemn statement of truth.
Our government is monetizing the debt. In other words, it is lending money to itself, while printing it on an unprecidented level. If current trends continue, 100% of all tax revenue will be consumed by the interest on the debt alone. This is the countdown to doomsday, if something is not done. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
