My parents give me pocket money. I go out to spend it creating workplaces. That's good for the economy. Otherwise it'd be just deposited into dad's bank account. Why doesn't the government give me "pocket money", aka basic income?

File: 50 KB, 600x360, Pocket_money_640x360-600x360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 22 00:23:41 2015 No.762095 [Reply] [Original]

My parents give me pocket money. I go out to spend it creating workplaces. That's good for the economy. Otherwise it'd be just deposited into dad's bank account.

Why doesn't the government give me "pocket money", aka basic income?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:29:32 2015 No.762097 >>762095 Cause the government uses the money they would give you. They buy buildings, contracts, and resources for their subdivisions, factions, and backer companies. Why would they give it to you? They spend it on themselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:30:26 2015 No.762099 See deadweight loss

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:31:05 2015 No.762100 >>762097 Too boost the economy? Otherwise money is just stolen

Anonymous Fri May 22 00:34:19 2015 No.762105

>>762100
Did you not read? You spending money boosts the economy, them spending money boosts the economy.

They gain nothing by giving it to you, so they spend it on services for themselves. It's not like money has some magical benefit when you spend it instead of anyone else spending it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:39:15 2015 No.762113 >>762105 They don't spend it in local grocery stores. Those who get the profit are corporations

Anonymous Fri May 22 00:39:35 2015 No.762115

>>762095
Cause you could do stupid shit like buy drugs.

We hope that the government wont buy drugs, but we live in a society where we have said people control the government, and no one controls the people. So we don't give you money and say ok don't buy drugs because we would rather avoid the issue of giving someone money and then telling them what to do. It's less morally and ethically hazardous to let the government keep the money and try and influence the government.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:41:39 2015 No.762118 File: 38 KB, 611x404, obama-marijuana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762115 >Cause you could do stupid shit like buy drugs. Actually today I bought cocaine worth 70 dollars. >implying those govt guys don't use drugs

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:50:19 2015 No.762129 >>762118 So this is the king of person that believes in basic income.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:51:37 2015 No.762133 >>762129 Well, I wouldn't spend it on drugs. I would better invest it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:52:46 2015 No.762135 >>762133 Yeah... but you might

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:53:28 2015 No.762136 >>762095 Reddit pls go.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:55:11 2015 No.762139 >>762135 Look, drugdealers spend money and boost the economy, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:55:55 2015 No.762140 >>762118 >wanting free money >does cocaine with cash that daddy gives him You might not be a little girl, but you're definitely a little bitch.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:57:23 2015 No.762142 File: 20 KB, 300x300, sociallism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762140 Why? I want a better society for everyone. Actually I am socialist.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:57:34 2015 No.762143 >>762095 When you put money in your banking account it boosts the economy due to fractional reserve!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:59:19 2015 No.762146 File: 27 KB, 320x240, dollar_mason_seal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762143 >it boosts the economy due to fractional reserve!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 00:59:52 2015 No.762147 >>762142 >socialism lol

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:01:17 2015 No.762148 File: 139 KB, 634x633, article-2386232-1B30C5F9000005DC-668_634x633.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762147 Why not? Socialism is when everybody is rich.

Anonymous Fri May 22 01:12:57 2015 No.762158

>>762139
Yeah but the government doesn't want that. The underground economy is associated with crime and violence and is untaxed. The government can't support that in good conscience.

>>762148
That's not true. It means that there is a smaller wealth gap but no one will ever be as rich as they could have been in a free market capitalist economy. What if you found yourself in a socialist economy with a small wealth gap, but a lower quality of life than you had before? Maybe now you can afford some luxuries like coke but maybe you couldn't in a socialist economy? Or maybe you can, but you pay some other price like for instance the city or town you live in starts to turn into a Detroit? Are you really rich and did you make it out with a net gain?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:14:34 2015 No.762159 >>762158 Well, it would be better if I could buy less coke. Also, everyone would live better.

Anonymous Fri May 22 01:26:28 2015 No.762167

>>762159
I have to go do some things and the thread might die by the time I'm done but still I think you should learn more about the problems surrounding the issue. I would love to continue this but I think you should watch Milton Friedman's lectures on free markets starting here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Fj5tzuYBE

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:28:11 2015 No.762169 >>762167 Ok, but when you return, I want you to know this: The bigger wealth gap is, the worse social issues get. Crime, suicide, drug addiction, etc

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:30:40 2015 No.762171 >>762169 untrue, look at the data

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:31:58 2015 No.762173 >>762171 Post your data Mine: Venus project

Anonymous Fri May 22 01:42:45 2015 No.762182

You guys are fucking retarded.

The only thing that matters in economics is satisfying the demands of society.

Because of stagnant capital and future technological employment, there will NOT be a way for people to get enough money.

This will be totally solved by basic income.

And don't you faggots tell me hurr durr can't afford it bullshit. Money is created out of nothing. The government has the right to issue as much as it wants. Hell, it can even "afford" it if it were to cut certain areas of the "budget".

Basic income would create prosperity for all; poor, middle class, and rich.

The future should be a world were
1. nobody is poor
2. everybody works a little at something they are passionate about
3. individuals who work alot and excel are still rewarded by riches

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:44:39 2015 No.762183 File: 11 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762182 >Money is created out of nothing >Money is created out of nothing >Money is created out of nothing >Money is created out of nothing >Money is created out of nothing

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 01:51:10 2015 No.762189 It is, dumb ass. All money is basically book keeping. It is literally created via computer.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:30:08 2015 No.762213

>>762182
You're under the assumption that we're sustainable. We are not. There is a limited amount of food and livestock, and we're overusing our farmland in the US, India, and China, which is killing the soil (U.S. because we feed everyone else too). Especially China, who converts farmable land the size of Rhode Island into desert each year, and has been for 25 years. This is because the world population doubled, literally doubled, from 1960 to 2010. It's going to double again in 50 more years. The whole reason why things are so much harder to sustain and manage and why things have gotten worse is because we have too many people and can't manage them all. No amount of money will feed you or give you housing when there's 15 billion people in another 50 years.

The problem isn't money, it's resource ratio to population, and that issue is only getting worse.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:37:54 2015 No.762216

>>762182
Well there has been a serious project taking place in the world of philosophy and literature for over 2000 years that says that you don't need money to escape poverty and offers plenty of solutions to our problems at present without a socialist economy. However, I agree that in an ideal utopia we would live in a much better world but we are not there yet. I don't think we'll see these conditions met in our lifetime and they are not something we should look forward to at this time.

>>762173
Jacques Fresco is a dubious character.
Here are graphs for wealth inequality
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf
Here are graphs for homicides going back 400 years
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
Wikipedia has plenty of citations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Here are suicide rates from the turn of the century into the 80s
http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit/g3.gif
This graph fills in suicide to the present day. Although it's a little crowded it's clear
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

As you can see the trends don't fit each other. So wealth inequality does has not caused an increase in crime overall. I would encourage you to try and fit the wealth inequality graphs to more statistics. So unless we can produce something further, we shouldn't assume that the wealth gap is the largest social issue we face today. We may not like it. It might seem unfair to us. Certainly we should want each individual to have as high of a standard of living as they can reasonably have but there are good ways of going about doing that and bad ways. Free market capitalism is the best way human beings have ever met that challenge in all of human history. The data is there to support that. Most of these things that socialists, feminists, American Democrats will throw at you are nitpicking of margins.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:42:14 2015 No.762217

>>762213
What if recieving the basic income was tied to agreement by the individual only to create one more human? Thus stabilizing population.

Oh wait , a stagnant population would slow our precious economic growth.

Looks like your attempt to derail the conversation with a subject not under discussion just leads us down a neverending hole of hypotheticals.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:44:31 2015 No.762218
File: 1.26 MB, 1764x875, Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>762182
>>762189

It actually frightens me when I come across people like yourself - headstrong, filled with hate, and so woefully unintelligent.

>just print more money and there will magically be more resources and more adept use of those resources!!!!!! it's that simple you fucking idiots don't you get it?!?!?

Honestly, if you don't understand why simply adding to the money supply does nothing but reduce the real value of the currency already i circulation then I'm afraid you are too stupid to be of use to society and should just kill yourself.

Pic related, you are literally as dumb as a Zimbabwean nigger.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:48:58 2015 No.762223

>>762217
No, it's a reason why basic income won't work, but you're basic so you can't see that. If our resources don't increase, but basic income gives more money from nowhere to everyone, then prices go up and we're all back to where we started. Your money supply doesn't matter, what matters is your money supply compared to the market's resources.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 02:49:28 2015 No.762225 >>762218 >>just print more money and there will magically be more resources and more adept use of those resources!!!!!! it's that simple you fucking idiots don't you get it?!?!? the federal reserve does this...

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:54:21 2015 No.762228

>>762218
Yeah here are all of the sections on hyperinflation on wiki by country
4.1 Angola
4.2 Argentina
4.3 Armenia
4.4 Austria
4.5 Azerbaijan
4.6 Belarus
4.7 Bolivia
4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.9 Brazil
4.10 Bulgaria
4.11 Chile
4.12 China
4.13 Estonia
4.14 France
4.15 Free City of Danzig
4.16 Georgia
4.17 Germany (Weimar Republic)
4.18 Greece
4.19 Hungary, 1923–24
4.20 Hungary, 1945–46
4.21 Kazakhstan
4.22 Kyrgyzstan
4.23 Serbian Krajina
4.24 North Korea
4.25 Nicaragua
4.26 Peru
4.27 Philippines
4.28 Poland, 1923–1924
4.29 Poland, 1989–1990
4.30 Republika Srpska
4.31 Soviet Union / Russian Federation
4.32 Taiwan
4.33 Tajikistan
4.34 Turkmenistan
4.35 Ukraine
4.36 Uzbekistan
4.37 Yugoslavia
4.38 Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
4.39 Zimbabwe

Because inflation the value of their currency, it became more valuable to use their money for toilet paper, kindling in their fireplaces and wall paper. You wouldn't do any of that shit with real money. It's valuable, that would be wasteful. When you print more money, you make all the other money printed by that country less valuable so everything becomes more expensive.

Newfags get in here were doing econ and econ policy 101, it's a great time. We're gonna save you a lot of money and headache from bad policy.

Anonymous Fri May 22 02:57:05 2015 No.762231
File: 80 KB, 413x395, 1310483412100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>762225

No, because when the Federal Reserve prints more money then FUCKING INFLATION HAPPENS DIPSHIT.

More fucking resources are not created, the price of goods increases to reflect the newly increased money supply.

Jesus fucking christ, and you wipe your own ass and cook your own food? How the fuck do you survive on a day to day basis?

Seriously the only way you fucking idiots could be this naive is if you are still living with your parents or something.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:00:01 2015 No.762232 File: 1.83 MB, 500x500, 1426891828877.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762231 CIA pls go. We won't fall for your shilling anymore.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:02:23 2015 No.762234 >>762232 If I were CIA I'd be destabilizing a third world shithole, not giving ECON 101 lessons to fuckboy retards like you.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:11:54 2015 No.762239 >>762225 >Fed printing money Printing money causes inflation, EVEN IF THE FED DOES IT. Maybe they shouldn't be doing it? >>762232 >has inflation explained to him >you are with the CIA

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:11:58 2015 No.762240 >>762115 *try to influence

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:16:28 2015 No.762242 File: 59 KB, 420x247, 1376089381374.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Guys, I don't think OP's "My parents give me pocket money" was a metaphorical example to prove a point, I think he might just be underage...

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:17:32 2015 No.762243 >>762240 Obviously one is more appropriate depending on the circumstances imagined.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:43:00 2015 No.762252 >>762242 Implying I cant get pocket money if 20+

Anonymous Fri May 22 03:47:53 2015 No.762256

>>762095
You are doing it wrong son. You need to figure out the net present value of the current amount of pocket money you receive on a regular basis. Then go ahead and demand the net present value for today on a 25 year forward look. Accept that money now and put it in your savings account. Then award yourself a "success bonus" for achieving that amount in advance and splurge on something that will show your peers that you are a "winner".

Your friend,
Jeff Skilling

Anonymous Fri May 22 03:51:55 2015 No.762259

>>762223
>from nowhere to everyone, then prices go up and we're all back to where we started. Your money supply doesn't matter, what matters is your money supply compared to the market's resources.

From means tested welfare to everyone you mean? We can give 10k a year to every adult us citizen over age 21 without raising taxes simply by diverting these

Prices go up? Lookup a concwpt called "income elasticity of demand" and get back to me

Money supply vs resources isn't as important as velocity of money. Thats why printing trillions of qe money just got stock prices to rise

Anonymous Fri May 22 04:18:02 2015 No.762267

>>762252
That's not implied. What is implied that a person who is saying what you are saying is more likely to be coming from a person who is underage than over age. You don't seem to have a basic understanding of the ideas you're referring to. They're guessing that you're young and haven't learned anything yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 04:32:18 2015 No.762273 >>762095 Because spending isn't free. Redistribution carries a cost with it and so you can never fully redistribute a given amount of revenue, some (in practice, much or most) of it will inevitably be lost to bureaucratic interests.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 04:37:42 2015 No.762275 >>762273 Ok I can leave n

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 06:56:12 2015 No.762310 >>762183 this kid is fucking retarded >>762182

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 06:56:29 2015 No.762311 >>762267 Examples?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 06:57:28 2015 No.762312 >>762231 Thinking the Fed prints money smh

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 06:57:43 2015 No.762313 If we had some sort of basic income, there'd be no starving Africans

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 06:59:35 2015 No.762314 This thread is full of retards. Yep, basic income would be better for everyone, except the 1% Yep, fed creates money out of nothing

Anonymous Fri May 22 07:35:09 2015 No.762335

>>762095
The government doesn't have a large enough income base to just throw money at people. The law is also written by people with drive and ambition who are biased against just throwing money at people for doing nothing.

You want basic income? Go make a million dollars and live off the interest.

Anonymous Fri May 22 14:12:55 2015 No.762608

>>762095
I support Basic Income as a replacement for our current welfare state, however to answer your question.

When you place money in a bank account, it gets lent out and is therefore capital investment which generates more useful returns to society than just spending.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:38:59 2015 No.762629 >Why doesn't the government give me "pocket money", aka basic income? this is the typical voter. another win for the dems in 2016.

Anonymous Fri May 22 14:40:00 2015 No.762630

Welfare does not stimulate the economy. This is a broken window fallacy that is constantly perpetuated. Welfare is done as a humanitarian effort for our society, the goal is not and will not ever be to profit off taxing your own citizens and then giving to to non working citizens and then taxing it again when they give it back to the original owners of the capital.

A basic income is both impossible to realistically implement and it is inferior to the current welfare system.

You simply cannot implement a basic income and at the same time remove the current welfare system or keep both at the same time. The money isn't there for both and there are too many people who are dependent on welfare and will not allow their

The very premise of a basic income is flawed because welfare should be given out as a service that used only as needed. You should not be striving to have an entire country dependent on a welfare system.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:55:32 2015 No.762641 >>762630 This All of my this

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 15:11:58 2015 No.762649 File: 36 KB, 330x329, 1430956901989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>762313 If you actually posted this in total seriousness and believe it - please, for the sake of our gene pool, consider committing suicide.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 15:14:42 2015 No.762652 >>762095 >capital investment which generates more useful returns to society than just spending. [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 15:29:09 2015 No.762665 >>762095 cause most people would waste it.

Anonymous Fri May 22 15:36:48 2015 No.762672

>>762095

Get your ass to lending club and start investing $25 at a time. The money is hard to pull out, so it'll force you to smarten up.

Prove to your parents you're being wise with your money instead of spending it all on anime and Mountain Dew, and they might give your more money.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 15:50:05 2015 No.762686 >>762630 >>whats a negative income tax?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 16:14:16 2015 No.762707 >>762686 >We're gonna replace the current system of welfare, which creates entire generations of dependent peoples with a system that disincentives working even more.

Anonymous Fri May 22 16:59:28 2015 No.762742

>>762312
The Fed prints money. No one else is allowed to print money. QE does work by the fed creating money out of thin air. No one else is allowed to create money except the treasury, which is only allowed to make coins.

>>762652
I'll be the citation. Rich man A has a billion dollars invested in Company A. Company A is responsible for building a new class of container ships that are bigger than ever. The new size allows trade companies to ships more goods faster than ever at a lower cost. Company T buys the ships. Now more goods that are cheaper are coming into the American market for Company B. Because Company B wants to beat its competitors, Companies C and D, it charges less than them for the same goods because of its benefits of the new freight ships. Now the American consumer gets to buy good for much less, meaning they can buy more things and their quality of life improves.

Lets say that Rich man A didn't have a billion dollars to invest in Company A that built the boats. None of that process would be able to have happened. That means that the products that the American consumer buys never go down in price and their quality of life does not improve.

They spend more money on cars or ovens or whatever would have gotten cheaper from the use of the new boats and now they can't spend as much money on their children or they don't have extra money to give to charity. Or maybe when something bad happens in their lives they don't have an emergency fund.

SO NOW ALL YOU NIGGERS CAN SEE THAT BECAUSE RICH MAN A MADE SOME DECISIONS IN THE MARKET FOR HIS OWN INTERESTS YOUR LIVES GOT BETTER.

So basic income people think that Rich people are allowed to be rich. "It's not that they have more money than me, that's fine, but they just have all of this surplus. Lets just cut out some of his surplus cash". The problem is now that billion dollars is dispersed around however many fucking people THAT ARE DUMB AS FUCK AND ARE NOT MASTER INVESTORS.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 17:02:51 2015 No.762748 >>762742 >2015 >not knowing that a made up hypothetical story is not a citation thanks for playing fox news

Anonymous Fri May 22 17:08:45 2015 No.762752

>>762742
Except most of the QE money got pumped into stocks not used on new businesses. Yoyre trying real hard to prove trickle down , whereas we know for a fact that if the velocity of money were increased in the way it would with a universal income business and tax money would boom

Also , again , we can implement a pretty damn good universal income without printing new money or raising taxes , just need to divert the money currently wasted on means tested welfare.

Anonymous Fri May 22 17:40:51 2015 No.762775

>>762095
Because to you money that had to take it from someone else who could have also spent it somewhere creating workplaces. The only difference is now there are inefficiencies and for every dollar taken to go towards your dumbass' basic income not all of it get to you.

Anonymous Fri May 22 18:02:08 2015 No.762798

>>762775
thats actually the opposite of the truth, means tested welfare is terribly inefficient and lets tons of people fall through the cracks , the government just writing a check for every social security number is pretty simple in comparison.

A lot of government workers are required to ensure that welfare recipients are not claiming their benefits fraudulently, and to administer the complicated system of welfare payments and tax credits. The increased need for personal tax advisers also sucks skilled workers out of the productive sector. A basic income would hugely simplify the welfare system by replacing most of these bureaucracies, which would reduce its administrative cost significantly.

secondly, When welfare subsidies are contingent on conditions like employment, income level, number of hours worked, family status, etc, there are opportunities to game the system, either by illegally lying (fraud) or by simply obeying the economic incentives put in front of you (waste/abuse). These cause losses of real economic value, which are paid for by every taxpayer. Removing this incentive structure allows confidence in the welfare system's ability to reach people exactly as intended.

Anonymous Fri May 22 19:44:34 2015 No.762866

>>762742

THIS

>So basic income people think that Rich people are allowed to be rich. "It's not that they have more money than me, that's fine, but they just have all of this surplus. Lets just cut out some of his surplus cash". The problem is now that billion dollars is dispersed around however many fucking people THAT ARE DUMB AS FUCK AND ARE NOT MASTER INVESTORS.

T
H
I
S

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:05:07 2015 No.763087 >>762095 Basic income would eradicate poverty with the stroke of a pen. 10,000 USD for everyone, now!

Anonymous Sat May 23 01:23:46 2015 No.763089

Your parents choose to give you pocket money because they are your child and hope you will turn into something. The government get's money from people (like me) who don't give a fuck about you. And would rather not see my money go to a fucking parasite. (And let's face it, welfare and all that shit is just 21st century slavery, we just call it social welfare).

Get a job fucker.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:32:51 2015 No.763093 >>763089 Actually, a lot of modern day employment is wage slavery, and basic income would end it.

Anonymous Sat May 23 01:34:55 2015 No.763095

>>763089
>Slaves have no choice
>Wage slave is a hipster bullshit word like rape culture
>Fuck you
>You choose to work, at the rate you agreed to
>Not a slave
>You take my money and give it to people to stupid or lazy or useless to work
>Robbery nigger
>But because taxes are "required" its slavery.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:43:42 2015 No.763099 >>762866 >>whats velocity of money?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:44:55 2015 No.763100 >>763089 We can give 10k usd to every adult over age 21 right now without raising taxes. Just rerouting means tested welfare thats already in place

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:46:29 2015 No.763101 >>763087 The majority of Americans would spend it in one day. Can you imagine how many niggers would just spend it on bling? >Go back to reddit

Anonymous Sat May 23 01:48:52 2015 No.763103 [DELETED]

>Daddy dearest gives me a credit card for living expenses, pretty sure it's linked to a "trust fund" type thing
>can't stop spending
>people constantly asking you to buy them things
>papa says "pls stop spending so much" every month
>soon I feel it will all be over and father will be furious

I am aware this isn't very relevant but I have to get it off my chest I'm getting sick with worry.

future reader Sat May 23 01:49:03 2015 No.763104

>>763101
>The majority of Americans would spend it in one day.

Well it would be dispersed monthly, so that would be hard.

>>763101
>Can you imagine how many niggers would just spend it on bling?

Black people would use it to pay their debts and buy essentials since so many of them are poor. They are the people who need this the most.

>>763101
>>Go back to reddit
No. I heard about this through reddit.com, and now I must spread the word.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:52:43 2015 No.763106 >>763104 Nice bait

Anonymous Sat May 23 07:38:46 2015 No.763269

>>763093
Do you know when the term "wage slavery" first appeared? When people were first like "holy shit 50 or 70 or whatever hour workweeks should we do this"? It was during the civil war and people didn't like it. It was one of Lincolns platforms to deny the entry of wage slavery into the society. What was the alternative? Living in a fucking shack in the woods and being the blacksmith for everyone in the town. Town didn't have a doctor? Holy shit you are fucked and better be nice as fuck to the first one that shows up. No Lawyers? Well I guess no one is gonna sue anyone any time soon. There are consequences for "getting rid of the system" aka changing every single fucking thing that you do in your life into God knows what.

Ok listen, I'm not trying to get on anyone's case. It's true that people have problems and people just want to fix them and see people's lives improve. You don't have to be communists to do this. Reducing crime, increasing real wages, improving quality of life. You don't have to be socialists to fix these problems.

What you need to do is end open immigration. Our borders were closed for almost 60 years. Very few people coming in.

It's like you have all this work to do at your job and you're given the chance to say "ok, I've got all this on my plate, I'm not gonna take on any new jobs so I can focus on doing this job the best I can and producing the highest quality product possible. I'm not gonna take on more than I can handle and I'm not going to force myself to have to rush through this".

When you limit immigration you have the opportunity to create a country where everyone is educated. The economy and the government don't have to bear the stress of a continuously bloating population and they can manage it. You always will know who your fucking neighbors are and what they are about.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:14:03 2015 No.763475 [DELETED]

>>763269
>What you need to do is end open immigration. Our borders were closed for almost 60 years. Very few people coming in.

This is bullshit. If you actually study immigration you will know that there is a shortage of SKILLED immigrants. We don't need more Somalis or Mexicans with no skills.

Also, immigrants would just lower wages for the most vulnerable in society.

The rest of your post is just libertarian retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:24:32 2015 No.763484 >>763475 That's his point, anon. He's saying less immigrants.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:27:28 2015 No.763486 >>763484 Fuck I missed a word.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:06:45 2015 No.763574 bump

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:06:43 2015 No.763635

Reading this thread has made me even more convinced that we need a mandatory econ test before we let the retards flood in. What I see here are textbook examples lacking the understanding of basic concept like inflation, QE, money multipliers and shitload of others.

Fuck all of you. Instead of actually downloading Mankiw's macro 101 and actually learning anything you shitpost your fantasies about your manchild lifestyles. Kill yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:36:21 2015 No.763663 >>763635 Stay mad.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:44:01 2015 No.763671 >>762095 Cause one is your parents giving you money for being a lazy shit and the other is the taxpayers giving you money for being a lazy shit.

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:52:23 2015 No.763677

>>762095
Labor is what boosts the economy, spending is just something that encourages work. It's what our currency is printed on, banking on the idea that your future labor will contribute to making the interest payments on the currency printed from thin air.

They can't just give people currency because they wouldn't work for it. What would you be able to buy in an environment where nobody had to work? Nothing? How does that affect the value of the currency? Decreases it? How would you get more currency? You'd work for it.

See where I'm going? Giving everybody pocket change is a zero sum gain ultimately. Spending money in a way that incentives labor is the only way to make that currency worth anything.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance