Davsey85
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 332
How about forgetting about the isms and doing what actually benefits a society
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I am glad you understood my post as I accidentally omitted the negative.You are correct in thinking that the United States has always been socialist, pretty much has been since it's inception in 1871. The United States of America never has.
Really not trying to be confrontational, but can you explain? In particular the "steals trillions of dollars every year" under the term "inflation"?Of course it's done harm. It steals trillions of dollars every year from people, under the term "inflation." The Fed can print as much money as it wants for any reason, and doesn't have to tell anyone. With computers these days, it doesn't even have to print it. The Fed is not constitutional, and the Federal Reserve Act itself was passed under deceit and fraud.
I am glad you understood my post as I accidentally omitted the negative.
But I have no idea what distinction you are making between the US and USA and 1871?????
Really not trying to be confrontational, but can you explain? In particular the "steals trillions of dollars every year" under the term "inflation"?
And, so . . . ?Most people don't. The United States of America is the republic, founded by the Constitution of 1789/1791. The United States is a Federal Corporation, created by the Congressional Act of 1871. People use the terms interchangeably, but they are not the same thing.
Yeah, ok. I just thought you might want to explain your position. But if your argument is going to devolve to "you aren't smart enough to understand" that quickly, it was never going anywhere in the first place.Look, you either understand economics and the effect of printing money out of thin air, or you don't.
@tankasnowgod have you actually listened to the speech?
Which parts do you disagree with?
State control of legislation and more tax wealth is not comparable to private control in any way - when the private money comes in it's coming with an expectation of influencing policy from a small and direct source.
Tax income is in small chunks from many different people and the only expectation is for social good. It's nonsensical to conflate the two.
Patently countries that have more government regulation and a less free market have a much richer and freer middle class.
Yeah, ok. I just thought you might want to explain your position. But if your argument is going to devolve to "you aren't smart enough to understand" that quickly, it was never going anywhere in the first place.
My apology. I am hard of hearing. Especially high frequencies. Can't hear dog whistles at all.
I agree @tankasnowgod seems a little hostile. The more money the Fed prints the lower the value each dollar is, printing more money lets them pay people/institutions but lowers the total value of the dollarReally not trying to be confrontational, but can you explain? In particular the "steals trillions of dollars every year" under the term "inflation"?
America is worthy of criticism, but I find the world trend now is that which a more eloquent and articulate person(s) (whom I can't recall) defined as the simple and base response of the lesser desiring and pursuing the downfall of the greater--simply because this is now the opportune time. It's not necessarily rooted in a more just and noble position, nor is it rooted in the good of the "corrupt" country, but more in a desire to see the giant fall. I don't use the term lesser or giant in any way other than to denote the positioning in the global power settings.Living in an Ayn-Rand eutopic phantasy where you just abolish all government institutions and everything will be peachy is all good and fine, but there millions of Americans living in a real crony-capitalist-dystopia right now, and I think they prefer a real alternative.
FDR and the new deal@Kartoffel hinted at this, but what really confuses me is why anybody thinks the US is or has ever been a "democratic socialist" economy/government? Sure, Bernie advocates some changes to that. But I can't help but wonder at how people get tweaked by the word "socialist" as if the US (or western Europe since WWII) has ever been anything but.
Yes. One particularly poignant example of many. Thank you for taking the point seriously.FDR and the new deal
Additionally, good luck getting your mail delivered or your fires put out in a purely “capitalist” United States.Yes. One particularly poignant example of many. Thank you for taking the point seriously.
To throw a little bit of coherence into this discussion:
"Simplifying Quill's explanation: “In a communist country, the government answers those questions. There's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.”
“In a capitalist society, the people make those decisions. The businesses, the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.”
“In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth. That's generally how we talk about it.” Back to Quill's point: A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population."
Do you know the difference between a Communist and a Socialist?
We are most certainly and always have been a "socialist democracy". And certainly should be. One might not like our system of representation or the particular choices it has led to (I certainly don't in many particulars). However, there has never been a purely market driven economy. For very good reason.
Shrieking about "socialism" is mindless conflation with communism. Which isn't even remotely true. And if anybody thinks there is a politician running for president or any other major office in 2020 who is NOT a "democratic socialist" or "social democrat" of some flavor, they are fooling themselves.
I disagree with Sander's core concepts. I personally don't think any entity should pay even a single dime to the IRS. I am against the idea of third party payers in medicine, and especially a single payer. I have no idea why anyone on this forum would be for more government control of medicine, as concepts of mistakes or outright fraud are discussed all the time. Unless, you don't really believe in anything we discuss here, and then yeah, just go take statins and SSRIs and get blasted with radiation to prevent cancer and so on. Don't worry about iron fortification, and such. I think the college and university system is bloated and corrupt, and don't think the answer is to continue to subsidize it with federal money.
The Greek concept of (direct) democracy has nothing to do with the modern concept of (representative) democracy invented around the French revolution by those who decided to wrestle the power from the nobility to their own advantage.
Greeks had no state power: every citizen was part of the state and could either participate in it or be governed by it. Judges were designated by chance draw among them, and there were no professional politicians.
They participated daily in the political decisions of their nation and didn't chose anyone to represent their intentions.
In contrast, today's citizens are totally alienated from power and have no say in which way they're governed: what we call (representative) democracy is in reality a liberal oligarchy totally alienating free individual choice, useful only in deceiving about the very concept of freedom and free choice.
There absolutely isn't any.
There are english subtitles available for this short video.