Originally posted by no1marauderIs it one of those things that no comparisons with the past are easy because of the volume and velocity of money these days?
If anything, monetary policy of the scope proposed may well be too weak to be an effective stimulus in an economy with as much underutilized capacity as the US has now. Relatively small changes in the velocity of money could virtually wipe out any expansionary effects.
Originally posted by WajomaThere's nothing wrong with capitalism, its unbridled capitalism that stinks.
Dang I was way out with my prediction, it hasn't even happened yet and we already have a left whinger stepping in to blame capitalism
All you right-fighters, protecting the rights of the top 2%. Its a joke.....
Originally posted by kmax87Capitalism is unbridled, so your first sentence reads:
There's nothing wrong with capitalism, its unbridled capitalism that stinks.
All you right-fighters, protecting the rights of the top 2%. Its a joke.....
There's nothing wrong with capitalism, but there is something wrong with capitalism.
It's not about protecting the rights of the top 2% and I challenge you to find a reputable definition of capitalism that makes that distinction. More woolly thinking from the dyed in the wool left whinger.
Originally posted by WajomaYou may be right, but if we are to go by pure definitions we have a mixed economy anyway. It's when pure forms of capitalism (economic system where the means of production is privately owned and managed,wiki) manifest itself I suppose that's when it can tend towards the unbridled spectrum of capitalism. Robber Barons of the 19 century and Corporations of the 20th and 21st century for example.
It's not about protecting the rights of the top 2% and I challenge you to find a reputable definition of capitalism that makes that distinction. More woolly thinking from the dyed in the wool left whinger.
But keep on fighting for the rights of the 2% to make you redundant. I'm sure you could care less about loyalty, nothing more than part of the journey right? No point complaining if the means of production uses your energy to grow to the point where you can be replaced. Nothing immoral there right? Well keep on fighting your rights. I'm sure they'll keep you warm at night and put food on the table when you get sick after you get sacked and your insurance company writes to you to advise you of clause 3(b)ii of Section 3 that says your salary insurance is invalidated when the cessation of work is caused by being fired.
Originally posted by kmax87You want some garauntee against redundancy? You think we should still have positions available for steam engine stokers?
You may be right, but if we are to go by pure definitions we have a mixed economy anyway. It's when pure forms of capitalism (economic system where the means of production is privately owned and managed,wiki) manifest itself I suppose that's when it can tend towards the unbridled spectrum of capitalism. Robber Barons of the 19 century and Corporations of the ...[text shortened]... s your salary insurance is invalidated when the cessation of work is caused by being fired.
You go into rant mode.
There is nothing immoral about being redundant if the job I do no longer has value. It's a mentality completely alien to me, people that cling to a job that has no value, it's a form of dishonesty, you'd have to lie to yourself every morning.
Originally posted by WajomaI'm no Luddite either, but there is difference between a company that holds the axe close to its chest until the last minute and one that signals its intentions way ahead of time and allows workers the opportunity to retrain.
There is nothing immoral about being redundant if the job I do no longer has value. It's a mentality completely alien to me, people that cling to a job that has no value, it's a form of dishonesty, you'd have to lie to yourself every morning.
So what's your problem with organized labor anyway?
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Er....um.....private industry is not the one printing money and private industry is not the one who runs up $13 trillion plus debts. I'll give you two guesses who does that.
Given the scale of potential fall-out, you think this is a wise option? Business as usual, deregulation ho! And just because a toxically skewed political system says you must?
With all the problems a free economy posees, the destruction of the Republic is not one of them.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's amazing anyone can say such obvious BS after recent events in the financial sector.
Er....um.....private industry is not the one printing money and private industry is not the one who runs up $13 trillion plus debts. I'll give you two guesses who does that.
With all the problems a free economy posees, the destruction of the Republic is not one of them.
Private industry has far more than $13 trillion in debt, BTW.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf private industry went belly up and the Republic remained economically sound, the republic would survive no matter what hardships faced them. Unfortunately, government will not even allow private industry to fail and have decided to go down with the ship.
It's amazing anyone can say such obvious BS after recent events in the financial sector.
Private industry has far more than $13 trillion in debt, BTW.
As I said, private industry has flaws and one of those flaws is that EVERY private business WILL fail at some point even with government welfare.
Originally posted by whodeyYour economic ignorance rivals and even exceeds the other right wingers here. Do tell me how private industry could go "belly up" and yet the Republic could remain "economically sound"?
If private industry went belly up and the Republic remained economically sound, the republic would survive no matter what hardships faced them. Unfortunately, government will not even allow private industry to fail and have decided to go down with the ship.
As I said, private industry has flaws and one of those flaws is that EVERY private business WILL fail at some point even with government welfare.