Layoffs coming...

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i bet there were never recessions or depressions (see: "panics") before the federal reserve :dunce:

it was the policies of the 20's, eerily similar to what the republicans are rooting for currently, which caused the great depression.

edit: there were other factors as well, but to blame it all on the fed reeks of "just-read-ayn-rand-again", as does the incessant and prepubescent scorning of "statists".

oh my, statists! the horror!
Click to expand...
In the 20's the Fed reduced interest rates and banks were lending money to every tom dick and harry. A big boom which then went bust(Sound familiar?) Ask the current chairman of the Fed, the Last chairman of the Fed and your hero Krugman and they will all tell you that the Fed caused the Great Depression and then made it even worse when they contracted the money supply.

You know why they call it the "Great" depression? Cuz it was worse than any recession or depression in our history. Anytime you have fractional reserve banking you will have recessions and depressions. Fractional reserve banking is another name for the creation of debt as money. Anytime you use debt as money you have boom and bust episodes, the severity of which is dependent on the total amount of debt in the system.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
The new deal was enacted from 33 to 35? something like that. The unemployment rates and stock market didn't return to pre-crash levels until the 50's. Glass-Steagall reigned in our reckless banking practices that brought about the depression. This was a good move to ensure it didn't happen again but he thought Keynes was right and kept us in a depression his entire 3 terms. Ending WWII and our military complex brought the economy back. The country as a whole was more geared toward production and exports instead of service and consumption as we are now.

FDR is the favorite of the leftist revisionists. He expanded executive powers like no one before or after until Bush/Obama. It was so bad congress had to enact a "we can't have another FDR" amendment.

If we didn't ignore history we would point to the leverage trading causing the 1907 panic (50% of dow, now that's a crash). Bucket shop laws were enacted to stop this practice. The depression of 20' was handled by cutting taxes and spending and was over in a year. The crash of 29' was caused by savings and loans conspiring with investment banks and manipulating an artificial bubble. Glass-Steagal was enacted to stop this sort of gambling and manipulation.

Fast forward to Clinton's term and the prevalent greed of the times. GS was repealed and credit default swaps (read about bucket shops from the 1900's) became all the rage. People got rich as our banks once again manipulated the market and here we are today.

Only Clintons and Newts think allowing S and Ls who are backed by FDIC to leverage our savings 40 to 1 could be a good thing. FDR would have fixed this (albeit with huge government expansion), Obama comes out with Dodd-Frank that does nothing to stop this. So you can praise FDR for at least recognizing a problem.

You've accused me of having an irrational hate for the left because I think 20 years of depression is not a good track record. You say it was the best time in our country for upward mobility, you say FDR ended the depression. I'm the irrational one....

FDR resided over the slowest recovery period in our history, Obama has resided over the second slowest. You would have to be irrational to not admit this. Ever, all time in the history of the US economy. Nobody's track record on the economy is worse than these two. Both were Keynesians. Both are regarded by the left as two of the all time greats.

Go ahead and ignore and skew history, it's all you got.

Edit: and what Dr. Kynes said
Click to expand...
The main thing I want to touch on is that people seem to assume certain things and accept broad statements about how government works. We are all guilty of this, even myself, but there is one way in which only the right wing seems to be and that the left somehow either overlooks or can actually see truthfully that it is a falsehood. The falsehood I am referring to is that all measures which increase the role of government are equal. By this I mean, the irrational fear that we MUST trade freedoms for security/justice/welfare. Indeed, some administrations seek to put limitations upon freedoms and do so under the guise of increasing security. That does not mean that we should oppose welfare. We should oppose the part of the measure that limits freedom.

Now, taking this into account, you have to actually examine more closely the ways in which these measures have been achieved. Which legislative actions contained double talk? Which ones served only the purpose of limiting freedoms? Which ones served which interests? All of this also has an entire dimension I have left out so far, economic rationale. Wealth is power. So with this in mind, I see the right wing playing upon fears to achieve it's version of a nany state for the wealthiest and pushing limits upon freedoms for the rest. They have enacted prohibition, started wars, and then taken away some of the safety net while growing an even bigger government than the left.

So when I hear righties say "Big Government" then I see the left with a smaller government than they had, yet with greater social welfare and apparently better economic times are under their lead, I am led to a single conclusion. The real struggle, indeed the only real struggle that is taking place, is class struggle. That it is the left pandering to the poor for power and the right pandering to the rich for power. There are liars and hypocrites on both sides. There are lefties siding with state and righties siding with corporatocracy. There are people on both sides siding with both forms of rule. There are very few anarchists. There are no right wing anarchists.

Sooner or later the government will not be there to keep this struggle from becoming an out in the open proletarian revolution and a violent one. So when I talk about taking measures to genuinely provide justice for the people struggling, I'm only seeking to minimize the violence.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
LOL.

yeah, austerity isn't working because we're not doing pure austerity.

just the same way as socialism never worked because we never did the pure socialism.

you sound like an angst-ridden teen.
Click to expand...
so bucky,, if youre so wise,, why the fuck is Gov Moonbeam Brown slashing BILLIONS from welfare medical,, schools,, community colleges and other things that he is presumed to be FOR,, yet still burning up $6,000,000.00 ( thats SIX MILLION DOLLARS!!!) A DAY (weekends and holidays included) to build a fucking toy train between malibu and the napa wine country?

what part of austerity is that?

answer: its the fake kind, the kind designed to squeeze the masses of proles on the bottom till they will vote for anything to stop the pain.

politics as usual from Jerry Moonbeam Brown, and from Bucky.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
If you think libertarian socialism isn't socialism, then you're fucking retarded.

Prove you're not, Obamas little bitch boy.
Click to expand...
hey harrekin, youre from Europe, (sort of) lets hear what you would call "libertarian" and socialist and "Libertarian Socialist", without any code words, dogwqhistles or references to other political theories, like:

Libertarianism is:______________________________________________________________________________________

Socialism is:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Libertarian Socialism is:_________________________________________________________________________________


i ask cuz all im getting on the subject is "But in Europe these words mean...."

lay it down from a European perspective for all us Americans who are "So Perverse" (~Noam Chomsky) that we cant understand the purity of this "philosophy"
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The main thing I want to touch on is that people seem to assume certain things and accept broad statements about how government works. We are all guilty of this, even myself, but there is one way in which only the right wing seems to be and that the left somehow either overlooks or can actually see truthfully that it is a falsehood. The falsehood I am referring to is that all measures which increase the role of government are equal. By this I mean, the irrational fear that we MUST trade freedoms for security/justice/welfare. Indeed, some administrations seek to put limitations upon freedoms and do so under the guise of increasing security. That does not mean that we should oppose welfare. We should oppose the part of the measure that limits freedom.

Now, taking this into account, you have to actually examine more closely the ways in which these measures have been achieved. Which legislative actions contained double talk? Which ones served only the purpose of limiting freedoms? Which ones served which interests? All of this also has an entire dimension I have left out so far, economic rationale. Wealth is power. So with this in mind, I see the right wing playing upon fears to achieve it's version of a nany state for the wealthiest and pushing limits upon freedoms for the rest. They have enacted prohibition, started wars, and then taken away some of the safety net while growing an even bigger government than the left.

So when I hear righties say "Big Government" then I see the left with a smaller government than they had, yet with greater social welfare and apparently better economic times are under their lead, I am led to a single conclusion. The real struggle, indeed the only real struggle that is taking place, is class struggle. That it is the left pandering to the poor for power and the right pandering to the rich for power. There are liars and hypocrites on both sides. There are lefties siding with state and righties siding with corporatocracy. There are people on both sides siding with both forms of rule. There are very few anarchists. There are no right wing anarchists.

Sooner or later the government will not be there to keep this struggle from becoming an out in the open proletarian revolution and a violent one. So when I talk about taking measures to genuinely provide justice for the people struggling, I'm only seeking to minimize the violence.
Click to expand...
Y U Make Me Agree With U??

but in answer to your boggle why there are no "right wing" anarchists (in whatever fashion you wish to use the word) is that the "Right Wing" associated with conservatives and conservative policies, these people, and organizations RESIST change, thus "anarchy" (in all it's myriad forms) is by definition Not Conservative.

you might as well wonder where all the Green Party oil executives are, or why there are so few Democrat-run small arms manufacturers.

you are an anti-nationalist (for america and other western societies only) because you are trapped in the Chomsky Zone, where only quaint primitive or failed cultural memes are worthwhile, and anything successful is by definition evil.
this kind of thinking will always put you on the opposite side of the table from anyone who thinks western civilization is good, and worth preserving.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
hey harrekin, youre from Europe, (sort of) lets hear what you would call "libertarian" and socialist and "Libertarian Socialist", without any code words, dogwqhistles or references to other political theories, like:

Libertarianism is:______________________________________________________________________________________

Socialism is:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Libertarian Socialism is:_________________________________________________________________________________


i ask cuz all im getting on the subject is "But in Europe these words mean...."

lay it down from a European perspective for all us Americans who are "So Perverse" (~Noam Chomsky) that we cant understand the purity of this "philosophy"
Click to expand...
Libertarianism doesn't exists over here, so most of the time it means "What?" to most Europeans.

Socialism means "We'll spend your money for you whilst you drone daily for scraps, don't worry, we're smarter than you".

Libertarian Socialism makes about as much sense as trying to impregnate someone throught their asshole, so a definition is retarded.

Hope this helps.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Libertarianism doesn't exists over here, so most of the time it means "What?" to most Europeans.

Socialism means "We'll spend your money for you whilst you drone daily for scraps, don't worry, we're smarter than you".

Libertarian Socialism makes about as much sense as trying to impregnate someone throught their asshole, so a definition is retarded.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Libertarianism doesn't exists over here, so most of the time it means "What?" to most Europeans.

Socialism means "We'll spend your money for you whilst you drone daily for scraps, don't worry, we're smarter than you".

Libertarian Socialism makes about as much sense as trying to impregnate someone throught their asshole, so a definition is retarded.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
are you proposing that this clown represents "Libertarian Socialism"?

i looked him up, and the proper appellation for this brainiac is "militant trade unionist"
Click to expand...
Yeah, he started off as a libertarian socialist, went full blown anarchosyndicalist and got killed by commies who then sent him off into history as "militant trade unionist".
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
the first and second statements are false and the third and fourth statements rely on the first and second statements.
Click to expand...
Saying something doesn't make it true. If you are trying to draw a line between a group of people taking over all the power in society by force and a group of people having already taken over all the power in society and using force to keep it, then you are splitting hairs. The fact is whoever is in charge of society is the government. Whether this is a person with a armband who declares the country socialist or a class of people who use their numbers to control the rest of the people you still end up with a portion of the country being controlled, if the use of force is what makes a person act a certain way there is no real life difference between them.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Saying something doesn't make it true. If you are trying to draw a line between a group of people taking over all the power in society by force and a group of people having already taken over all the power in society and using force to keep it, then you are splitting hairs. The fact is whoever is in charge of society is the government. Whether this is a person with a armband who declares the country socialist or a class of people who use their numbers to control the rest of the people you still end up with a portion of the country being controlled, if the use of force is what makes a person act a certain way there is no real life difference between them.
Click to expand...
I agree, currently society is being controlled by some bourgeois motherfuckers.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No. We're in debt because of war. ireland is just poor because, well, Ireland doesn't produce much. The austerity measures would first apply to the military and federal police agencies in libertarian socialism, then to corporate welfare.
Click to expand...
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you have never been to Ireland. Poor? Maybe the Poles there are poor. Granted, I spent a lot of my time in the republic visiting historic sites and sitting in little pubs in the country side. Most of my time was spent talking to people, though. I only stayed in a hotel once while I was there(Dublin), the rest of the time I stayed with people I met or in B&Bs. I got a really good feel for the people there, and poor isn't how anyone would describe it. It is a tiny country with 4 or 5 million people in it. It isn't poor as much as it is small. It is about the same size as South Carolina in both population and size if you include both the Republic of Ireland and the currently British occupied part. The only thing that would lead anyone to believe Ireland was poor is the condition of the roads, but it isn't any different than many states in America. Our roads aren't on the top of a cliff where you are a foot from falling into the ocean without a guard rail and I can't say I have ever seen a tunnel in America with a 90 degree turn and no warning of it.

Harrekin, where are you at in Ireland?
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i bet there were never recessions or depressions (see: "panics") before the federal reserve :dunce:

it was the policies of the 20's, eerily similar to what the republicans are rooting for currently, which caused the great depression.

edit: there were other factors as well, but to blame it all on the fed reeks of "just-read-ayn-rand-again", as does the incessant and prepubescent scorning of "statists".

oh my, statists! the horror!
Click to expand...
There always was and has been recessions and depressions. The reason we call the one in the 30s the "Great Depression" is because it was quite simply the worse one we have ever experienced. We would of had a shrinking of the economy and then it would of flattened for a while and then gotten better. Without actually reading and understanding how banks worked before the Federal Reserve, you have no place in a discussion of this. You realize the bigger banks bailed the smaller banks out to stop runs on banks and had systems in place to control all of this. Once the power was transferred away from the respective banks it gave all the banks this feeling of 'the government controls that now.' So no one did anything, and it caused it to continue to get worse. Kind of like if you were standing in front of your house that just caught fire and you thought "Not my problem, I'll wait for the fire department." or if you heard your neighbors screaming for help and you thought "The police will be here to help them in a bit, no need for me to be involved." or finally "No need for me to get a job, unemployment will go on for a couple years, I get food stamps and free stuff. My 5,000 tax return will be here in January. "

If you don't believe me, you could just ask Bernanke. He admitted all of this and agreed that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
*tries not to laugh at silly leprechaun*

I'm a libertarian socialist.

If you really think the "free-market" will magically create "justice for all people" please, by all means, explain how.
Click to expand...
Please explain how removing the right to make decisions for yourself magically creates "justice for all people." I think I have been very cordial and polite during the conversation, but I have to admit that your socialism sounds just like every other socialism once you got to the point of using force to take other peoples property became ok.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Please explain how removing the right to make decisions for yourself magically creates "justice for all people." I think I have been very cordial and polite during the conversation, but I have to admit that your socialism sounds just like every other socialism once you got to the point of using force to take other peoples property became ok.
Click to expand...
When did I ever say anything like this?
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
He lives in a fantasy land where libertarianism and socialism are somehow comparable.

Dont heed his opinion with anymore than humour and disdain.

He doesn't seem to realise what he calls "Libertarian Socialism" actually exists in capitalism and it's called a Co-Operative.
Click to expand...
Not comparable, but not at odds with each other. That was what I was seeing from the discussion. It was simply the OK of force that really makes me question what the difference was between his and the USSR's version of socialism.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Not comparable, but not at odds with each other. That was what I was seeing from the discussion. It was simply the OK of force that really makes me question what the difference was between his and the USSR's version of socialism.
Click to expand...
Socialism is coming whether you like it or not. Get used to it, you can have the GOP version or the Democrat version. If you get a free-market libertarian, you will then see a proletarian revolution when the the 47% of people living on welfare are cut off.

Make no mistake, Socialism is in your future in the US. Do you want some violence with it?
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The main thing I want to touch on is that people seem to assume certain things and accept broad statements about how government works. We are all guilty of this, even myself, but there is one way in which only the right wing seems to be and that the left somehow either overlooks or can actually see truthfully that it is a falsehood. The falsehood I am referring to is that all measures which increase the role of government are equal. By this I mean, the irrational fear that we MUST trade freedoms for security/justice/welfare. Indeed, some administrations seek to put limitations upon freedoms and do so under the guise of increasing security. That does not mean that we should oppose welfare. We should oppose the part of the measure that limits freedom.

Now, taking this into account, you have to actually examine more closely the ways in which these measures have been achieved. Which legislative actions contained double talk? Which ones served only the purpose of limiting freedoms? Which ones served which interests? All of this also has an entire dimension I have left out so far, economic rationale. Wealth is power. So with this in mind, I see the right wing playing upon fears to achieve it's version of a nany state for the wealthiest and pushing limits upon freedoms for the rest. They have enacted prohibition, started wars, and then taken away some of the safety net while growing an even bigger government than the left.

So when I hear righties say "Big Government" then I see the left with a smaller government than they had, yet with greater social welfare and apparently better economic times are under their lead, I am led to a single conclusion. The real struggle, indeed the only real struggle that is taking place, is class struggle. That it is the left pandering to the poor for power and the right pandering to the rich for power. There are liars and hypocrites on both sides. There are lefties siding with state and righties siding with corporatocracy. There are people on both sides siding with both forms of rule. There are very few anarchists. There are no right wing anarchists.

Sooner or later the government will not be there to keep this struggle from becoming an out in the open proletarian revolution and a violent one. So when I talk about taking measures to genuinely provide justice for the people struggling, I'm only seeking to minimize the violence.
Click to expand...
You are trying to compare hunting animals(right) and caging animals in zoos(left) but you forget that the animals are free and that neither of those is a great option. Every time someone ties a safety cable to you, it takes away the risk of life. However, once you are completely secure, you also cannot move freely. Risk is what makes a successful person more successful than another. If you remove that, then everyone is exactly the same - shitty. The end result of both ideologies is the same - you are standing there with nothing. Did Hitler(Centrist Statist), Stalin (Left Statist), and Mussolini(Right Statist) seem much different to you in the end? They could of all been the same people except they did what they did for different reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top