/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3493937]

I never asked for this /sci/

We could already live in a robot-transhumanist society

is all USA right-wing crap pushing us backwards

[Anonymous No.3493941]

We must do a revolution

[Anonymous No.3493948]

There will always be stupid people, the problem is leftist pseudo-intellectuals poisoning the minds of otherwise intelligent rational people.

[Anonymous No.3493956]

>>3493948

huuuuuuuuurrr

[Anonymous No.3493961]

>>3493937
Fuck the tea party. Just fuck them

[Anonymous No.3493972]

>>3493956
>baawww a fresh original idea, I hate new ideas
Cry more.

[Anonymous No.3493973]

>>3493948
>>3493937

>It's the left
>It's the right

Stop thinking in these political camps. Stop thinking as part of a nation.
Start thinking rationally independent of ideology or personal moral issues.

[Anonymous No.3493994]

>>3493973
The only reason I blamed the left is because OP blamed the right. OP is obviously a hipster who jumped on the leftist bandwagon, the truth is I hate both the left and the right as they are both stubborn zealots who cannot admit they are wrong even if you directly disprove everything they say in front of their face in an objective logical manner. Though it has to be said I really fucking hate the left for being posers on top of this, at least fundamentalist mormons understand why most people don't believe their outlandish myths, fundamentalist "progressives" believe that if you don't agree with everything you say then there's something wrong with yout.

[Anonymous No.3494002]

>>3493994

you must be ''agnostic'' too isn't it?

[Anonymous No.3494010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Party_USA

[Anonymous No.3494015]

They can't stop the future.

[Anonymous No.3494016]

>>3494002

>you must be ''agnostic'' too isn't it?
>too isn't it?
>isn't it?
>Cannot into English

Fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3494026]

>>3494016

I'm glad not being a fat american like you thanks

[Anonymous No.3494045]

>>3494026

>Assumptive over others appearance
>More concerned about his own appearance than intelligence
>Fullretardx2.jpg

[Anonymous No.3494046]

>>3494026
I'm not who you're replying to but at least try respond with arguments instead of resorting to cheap ad hominem like the underage kid you are.

[Anonymous No.3494069]

>>3494002
I'm apathetic on that issue.

[Anonymous No.3494097]

>>3493961
Fuck you, son.

[Anonymous No.3494103]

sup socialists.

[Anonymous No.3494107]

>>3494010
Wow, an official hipster party.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494117]

I for one welcome our new Cascadian overlords

Also OP, we can't YET live in a robot/transhumanist society.

Nothing wrong with being right wing, just *this* type of right wing. Utterly hijacked by corporations and special interest groups. And yes, it is holding everyone back.

[Anonymous No.3494123]

>>3494117
>Nothing wrong with being right wing

>nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.3494129]

I take issue with transhumanism and I don't prescribe to any "right" or "left" political ideologies. I see transhumanism (at least how it is described by transhumanists I know and on the web site) as a way for people who are afraid to die to cheat nature. I don't see how improving humans physically will solve any of our societal or interpersonal problems. Wasn't that the original goal of the movement? What the hell happened?

[Anonymous No.3494133]

Every third thread on /sci/ is a fucking political thread.

[Anonymous No.3494171]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

Niel disagrees with you people

[Anonymous No.3494175]

>right wing crap

LOL oh boy it's funny because it's the exact opposite.

Innovation comes out of the private sector(yes including the internet)

We need to end central banking and lower taxes so we can have a technological revolution.

[Anonymous No.3494179]

>>3493961
YEAH!!!

Damn those people wanting to get corporations and government off our backs.


How stupid are you kid?

[Anonymous No.3494208]

>>3494175
The internet came out of DARPA, MIT, and UCLA. None of those are very private sector.

Now, if you want to discuss the effect of the private sector on the american internet... Well, japan, korea, and west europe all have average connections ten times as fast as ours for similar prices. We're literally a generation and a half behind in internet infrastructure, because it's more profitable for comcast/verison to deal with rising demand on their outdated networks by implementing data caps instead of modernizing.

Why are all those other countries ahead of us? Government investiture in said infrastructure. Now, admittedly, this isn't as viable in america because our nation bigger than all of the examples i mentioned put together, but the underlying point is that you're demonstrably wrong, and/or bad at choosing examples.

[Anonymous No.3494221]

>>3493937
>USA right-wing crap pushing us backwards

Yes

\thread

[Anonymous No.3494226]

>>3494179
Haha. Are you fucking kidding me? They are controlled by corporations and they protect the corporations and the rich from paying their fair share. They will be responsible for a lot of misery when those morons force the end of social security.

[Anonymous No.3494229]

>>3494208
>>3494208
>The internet came out of DARPA, MIT, and UCLA. None of those are very private sector.
Wrong, the infrastructure required for the internet was created by private companies. Private sector had a massive role.

Also
>mit
>public

LOL idiot.

>Well, japan, korea, and west europe all have average connections ten times as fast as ours for similar prices.
We also have massive regulations and a central bank/high taxes(yes) destroying our currency weakening the power of the private sector.

Our internet is also cheaper.

[Anonymous No.3494249]

>>3494208
It's not just government investments. What's more important is (at least in Europe) that the government forces the monopolists to share their lines with other ISPs. It's just not easily possible to have competition when one company owns all the infrastructure. Competitors can't just build a new one. (And even if they did, it would be a massive waste of resources, something which the free market is supposed to avoid.)

I feel sorry for the Americans. Polls usually show that they favor taxes for the rich instead of the end of important government programs, but you have an extremist minority in Congress that shoves their point of view down everyone's throat.

[Anonymous No.3494256]

>>3494221
You're right, the state should control everything, fuck new innovative ideas being allowed to rise and fall based on how good they are. We should have a strong leader controlling us.

lol idiot leftists

[Anonymous No.3494267]

>>3494229
>Our internet is also cheaper.
No it's not. At least not if you compare speeds.

>mit
>public
Get's a lot of money from the government, especially the military. Idiot.

>high taxes(yes)
Overall, the US doesn't have high taxes you moron. Revenue as a share of GDP has been falling for years now and is as low as never before. The wealthy pay less taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the middle class. When you mean high taxes, you don't mean high taxes for the people that actually have the money.

>destroying our currency
The old libertarian paranoia about inflation. Not backed by any evidence, but what do libertarians know about economics anyway?

[Anonymous No.3494271]

>>3494229
Okay, admittedly, they only had the idea, and then they sold it to companies who profited on it. And, fair, MIT isn't 'public'. However.

>We also have massive regulations and a central bank/high taxes(yes) destroying our currency weakening the power of the private sector.
We do have a lot of regulation. However, our taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in 50 years. Your parenthetical does have the power to alter historical data.

>Our internet is also cheaper.
By what measure? Cheaper per 'standard' subscription? Maybe slightly, by a dollar or two. Cheaper per byte per second? Unquestionably not.

[Anonymous No.3494281]

>>3494267
>>3494267
>The old libertarian paranoia about inflation. Not backed by any evidence, but what do libertarians know about economics anyway?

I FUCKING RAGED HARD


Do you enjoy having your purchacing power destroyed?

Do you LIKE boom and bust cycles?

True economics(austrian economics) has logically predicted this for over a century.
Also the rich pay WAAAYYY more in taxes than they ever had really.

[Anonymous No.3494289]

>>3494271
>>3494271
>However, our taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in 50 years

Lol, oh boy no.

[Anonymous No.3494297]

>>3494267
Are you a moron? Revenue has been falling for years because WE'RE IN A FUCKING RECESSION

[Anonymous No.3494307]

>>3494281
Taxes from the upper tax bracket are higher than those of other brackets, because rich people today are vastly and terrifyingly richer, not because a greater percentage of their riches are being taxed.

If you have $1000 and i take ten percent, i have $100.
If you have $100,000, and i take one percent, i still have $10,000.

[Anonymous No.3494310]

>>3494281
>>3494281
>Do you enjoy having your purchacing power destroyed?
The current rates of inflation don't hurt savers. If you invest your money your purchasing power isn't destroyed.

>Also the rich pay WAAAYYY more in taxes than they ever had really.
That's simply not true, sorry. The rich can use a variety of tax loopholes (so can corporations) and can pay less than the middle class.

>>3494289
>Lol, oh boy no.
Nice argument bro. We have official statistics, you have nothing but your opinion. Do you like to ignore the Bush tax cuts?

[Anonymous No.3494316]

>>3494307
>>3494307
> because rich people today are vastly and terrifyingly richer,

and who's fucking fault is that bud?

Why do liberals support corporate fascism?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494328]

>>3494123
I said *this* type of right wing. I define right-wing as pro-capitalism

[Anonymous No.3494334]

>>3494328
Wow, then you're a violent animalistic piece of shit.

We need to bring back capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3494351]

>>3494316
It's not the left wing that wants to cut government in the middle of a fucking recession. The tea party doesn't have a fucking clue about basic economics. Or if they do, they just don't care and are ready to weaken the economy to achieve their dream of social darwinism and small gubberment.

Fortunately most tea partiers are hypocrites (or just dumb, I don't know) and often use government services themselves. So the tea party can't destroy the whole welfare state if it doesn't want to lose the support of the uneducated rednecks.

[Anonymous No.3494357]

>>3494310
The rich can't just arbitrarily get out of taxes. Only certain rich, like investors, who can use the lower long-term capital gain rate. In general, however, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the tax burden.

[Anonymous No.3494358]

>>3494351
>recession
I meant to say depression, but it's the same thing really, because the tea party would like us to enter a new recession by cutting unemployment benefits (which would hurt consumption) and other "entitlements".

[Anonymous No.3494361]

The federal reserve gave out 16 trillion dollars, made from thin air, without any government approval, at 0% interest.
And you still believe that libertarians are stupid?
Oh /sci/, y u so stoopid?
>Because socialism takes money from the middle class and pays my college tuition silly!
Oh. Right.

[Anonymous No.3494371]

>>3494357
>The rich can't just arbitrarily get out of taxes
I didn't say that they pay no taxes. I just said that they pay less than their share.

>the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the tax burden
That's nothing to be proud of. Decades ago the US was a society that was pretty equal, financially and their were no huge wealth disparities. Now it's approaching levels comparable to third world countries. And the wealthy have convinced unemployed (former) middle-class whites to vote against their own interest and support the tea party which wants to increase the income inequality and remove the social security net.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494376]

>>3494334
You seem rather butthurt over nothing. What's your problem, bro?

[Anonymous No.3494379]

>>3494361
>The federal reserve gave out 16 trillion dollars, made from thin air, without any government approval, at 0% interest.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that "creating money out of thin air" is a particularly bad thing to do. We haven't seen a hyperinflation, even though paranoid libertarians think it will happen any day now. So what's so bad about stimulating the economy?

[Anonymous No.3494383]

>>3494129
Nature is just physical law. There is no right or wrong, it just is and you better make use of it or die. Either way, the way I see it, transhumanism/posthumanism solves almost all problems that I can perceive in current society almost for free. Some new problems with arise, finding solutions for them will be fun, but most true injustices and actual problems of modern society would just go away in such types of transitions, but maybe you don't actually comprehend the full scale of what changes will entail and how profoundly it will change everything that we are (along with solving most of our modern and ancient problems, and adding a few completly new modern problems). Either way, the completly new problems are a welcome trade for the old ones any day.

[Anonymous No.3494385]

>>3494379
I don't know if you've bought anything lately...
No, you probably pirate shit, and ride a bike, and use food stamps.

[Anonymous No.3494386]

>>3494376
The problem is that you think you own me, my body and the product of my labor.

You need to be killed.

[Anonymous No.3494389]

>>3494379
That figure really does shock people though. $16 trillion is no fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.3494393]

>>3494371
>I just said that they pay less than their share.
And how do you calculate their share? Because they clearly pay more than the rest of us.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494394]

>>3494386
>The problem is that you think you own me, my body and the product of my labor.

Except I don't think any of these things, and I hope you have a very prosperous and interesting life.

>You need to be killed.
Why are you so mad? There is nothing to be angry about.

[Anonymous No.3494396]

>>3494389
At 0% interest.
In the banking world, that's called FUCKING INSANE.

Just you try getting a loan at 0% interest...

[Anonymous No.3494399]

>>3494386
>You need to be killed.
Shut your libertarian trap. You guys always seem to be planning to kill somebody.

[Anonymous No.3494402]

>>3494371
>Decades ago the US was a society that was pretty equal, financially and their were no huge wealth disparities.
That's nothing to be proud of. That's essentially because in the war-time era the rich were taxed out of existence.

>And the wealthy have convinced unemployed (former) middle-class whites to vote against their own
interest
Wrong, it's the other side the votes against their own interest. Free markets improve the economy as a whole, creates jobs, creates wealth, and provides a better standard of living for everyone.

>support the tea party which wants to increase the income inequality and remove the social security net.
The goal of the tea party as I understand it is primarily to save the country from its insane debt. If you don't understand the danger they're trying to save us from, maybe visit greece.

[Anonymous No.3494406]

>>3494399
>implying tyrannical dictators that are oppressing millions of innocent civilians don't need to be taken out

>>3494394
>Except I don't think any of these things
Oh, so you're a libertarian now and support a free society?

[Anonymous No.3494407]

Pic related /sci/.
Learn it well.

[SAGE No.3494408]

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

[Anonymous No.3494409]

>>3494402
>The goal of the tea party as I understand it is primarily to save the country from its insane debt. If you don't understand the danger they're trying to save us from, maybe visit greece.

95% of Tea Partiers don't know anything about taxes or spending other than what they hear about from Fox and other conservative corporate mouthpieces

[Anonymous No.3494413]

>>3494393
"Their share" is at least the percentage of their income (their disproportionately large income) that the average citizen pays. They pay less, due to tax loopholes, especially if they don't really work for their money. (That is, if they make money in the financial industry)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494415]

>>3494406
Libertarian socialism is my preferred position.

[Anonymous No.3494417]

>2011
>Still looking at GDP and not HDI
I seriously know you faggots still do this.

[Anonymous No.3494418]

>>3494385
Again, inflation is not at extremely high levels and nothing indicates that inflationary Armageddon is going to happen anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.3494422]

>>3494415
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

So you were LYING, you DO think you own me and the product of my labor?

I bet you're one of those chomsky fags too right?

[Anonymous No.3494424]

>>3494402
>That's nothing to be proud of
Why not?

>Wrong, it's the other side the votes against their own interest. Free markets improve the economy as a whole, creates jobs, creates wealth, and provides a better standard of living for everyone.

Free markets are about as real as fairy tales and all of the positive effects of the free market can be facilitated in a planned or mixed market.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494436]

>>3494422
Out of three options you are either:
- a troll (and a relatively good one)
- batshit insane
- far-right Republican
Oh wait, I only gave two choices

[Anonymous No.3494442]

>>3494402
>The goal of the tea party as I understand it is primarily to save the country from its insane debt. If you don't understand the danger they're trying to save us from, maybe visit greece.
Are you fucking kidding me? The US is nothing like Greece. Greece has to pay insane interest rates on new debt, the US has to pay extremely low interest rates. If you take inflation into account, the US has to pay almost no interest at all.

So the question is: What's worse? The job problem or the debt problem? In the US, it's definitely the job problem and the weak growth. New debt doesn't hurt the economy at all, because the new interest payments are minimal. The retarded cuts the tea party is pushing for will hurt growth, though. It was already estimated that even the small cuts that are being discussed will hurt economic growth by lowering the rate of growth by as much as 0.25%. And not tackling the job problem with new investments makes the problem even worse because you have to pay unemployment benefits even longer.
(Admittedly, the tea party would rather see the unemployed starve than help them and the economy out)

What kind of economic knowledge can you expect from people who compare the budget of a government to a credit card and running an economy to a household anyway? The economy will suffer because of extremists in Congress.

[Anonymous No.3494455]

[Anonymous No.3494457]

>>3494422
It's an actual thing, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494460]

>>3494455
Under that logic, taxes are socialism and evil

[Anonymous No.3494465]

>>3494436
>im a troll because I believe in logic and economics

LOL

Protip: Nobody here cares about your irrational socialism. We are scientists here.

Quit being a child.

[Anonymous No.3494468]

>>3494460
According to Libertarians, they are. Sure, they still gladly use all the services the government offers and have benefited from society all their life, but they could totally live in anarchism and all that...

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494470]

>>3494465
This is a poll that was conducted on /sci/ last night.
http://www.acepolls.com/polls/1222737-do-you-like-capitalism/results

[Anonymous No.3494472]

>>3494465

I'm socialist and scientist

[Anonymous No.3494476]

>>3494460
That's right! Who the hell needs all that army, education and science that deals with useless stuff that average Joe Smith doesn't ever make use of.

[Anonymous No.3494477]

>>3494465
>>im a troll because I believe in logic and economics
No matter how often you repeat it, Libertarianism is not based on sound economics. (As shown by the tea party that wants to cut government in the midst of a strong depression).

[Anonymous No.3494482]

>>3494457
>libertarian
>socialism

Why do sadistic leftists like to change words around?

Libertarianism means a free market.

Sorry, retard.

I really don't see why you hate libertarianism, you would benefit greatly from a free market.

[Anonymous No.3494484]

>>3494476
Continuation of the post:
That's why in true democraqcies it is Joe Smith who makes the decition to get rid of the useless tuf such as education and science - and /sci/ wonders why is America (EU as well actually) outsourcing science and thinking in general into Far Eastern Asia.

[Anonymous No.3494487]

The problem isn't giving.
As a libertarian, I have no quarrel with donation and charity, and fully encourage it.
The problem comes in, when I have to give up 35% of my income, 50% of my inheritance, or face prison or death.
The welfare system has only hurt the poor, by taking their need to do better and handing them a check.
And don't even get me started on the bloated military and policing of the people.
>So you don't believe in roads, fire departments, schools, space, infrastructure...
No, I never said that. If the current taxes that go to entitlements and police/military went to all those other things, the US would be a utopia.
Fully 85% of your taxes go to shit it shouldn't go to.
Another 12% goes to red tape and useless shit.
The rest is your entire road, space, parks and rec, fire, and schools budget.
that's right. A measly 3%.
The rest is bullshit.
Hence, the fucking problem.

[Anonymous No.3494488]

>>3494482
Who said I hated it? I was pointing out a fact. Also China's communist yet has a free market.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494491]

>>3494482
See pic.

I think the free market is a great concept. When does it start?

[Anonymous No.3494494]

>>3494482
>I really don't see why you hate libertarianism, you would benefit greatly from a free market.
The free market can fail. And it fails quite often. Almost no one here will deny that the free market is a good idea in principle and that the market should be as free as possible. But when you take it to laissez-faire levels most of the population will suffer.

[Anonymous No.3494500]

>>3494470
>very little vote count
>was probably a socialism thread

lol no.

[Anonymous No.3494507]

>>3494477
>>3494477
> Libertarianism is not based on sound economics. (As shown by the tea party that wants to cut government in the midst of a strong depression).

LOL we don't understand economics because we want to cut government that is CHOKING the private sector?

That's why we don't understand economics?

LOL

Keynesian economics is like homeopathy while austrian economics is like nanotechnology.

[Anonymous No.3494513]

>>3494494
>>3494494
>The free market can fail.

When has the free market EVER failed.

More specifically when has the economy failed when government mostly kept its hands off. I'd LOVE to see this.

inb4 you give examples of state interference which you blame on the free market

[Anonymous No.3494515]

>>3494487
The libertarians in Congress don't focus on defense, though (although they are willing to cut defense). Their voters are people who are greedy and afraid that big gubberment will give their money to welfare queens (which are a small minority among the unemployed and poor). Your goals might be noble, but the Republicans are malicious.

I'm saying: Good government > libertarian free market > corrupt government. And I'm not even sure if the libertarian free market really as that much better than a corrupt government that still governs at least a bit. Anyway, I don't see why I should want a very cruel free market dystopia when I can support politicians that are pro-free market but also for government regulation and investments that the free market simply doesn't deliver.

[Anonymous No.3494517]

>>3494472
No you're not. That's like saying you're religious and a scientist.

[Anonymous No.3494521]

>implying the technological revolution will start in the US

[Anonymous No.3494525]

>people actually believing one man or a group of people with all the power can make decisions for everyone else and direct resources efficiantly

Leftists are SOOOO fucking incredibly stupid. It blows my fucking mind how and why they believe this nonsense.

Wow....

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494526]

>>3494513
Would you define deregulation as 'freeing' of the market? If so, the 2007 stock market crash and the mini-depression that followed.

[Anonymous No.3494529]

>>3494507
>LOL we don't understand economics because we want to cut government that is CHOKING the private sector?
Oh right, that's it. That must be why the economy prospered when Reagan was in power. Wait..that never happened. The only thing those free market fundamentalists and their voodoo economics did was tripling the national debt and increasing the wealth gap while only achieving mediocre growth.

>Keynesian economics is like homeopathy while austrian economics is like nanotechnology.
Nice argument. Is it true because you say so?

[Anonymous No.3494534]

>>3494491
Right around 20.

You're an authoritarian, not a libertarian. Noam chomsky even thinks porn should be banned. Wow.

If someone like you ever took power we would slaughter you like the animal you are.

[Anonymous No.3494538]

>>3494517
If anything, libertarians are religious. Nice that you post a picture of Friedman. He was a good economists until he turned to politics and his arguments became intellectually sloppy.

(His idea of monetarism failed horribly too. So much for free market idols.)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494540]

>>3494534
Why is it I never seem to hear the left libertarians shout about lynching niggers and liberals, yet it happens relatively frequently on the other side of the fence?

[Anonymous No.3494541]

>>3494525
Horrible fallacy. No one is implying that and no one argued for a planned economy. Any serious economists will tell you that the market can fail and there is a consensus among economists that regulation is necessary. I doubt you have a clue about economics anyway.

[Anonymous No.3494548]

>>3494526
Nice retarded picture, we use the word socialism in it's accurate sense, unlike you who screams capitalism at everything bad in the world that is NOT capitalism.

>2007
>not the result of massive government regulation and the fed loaning billions of dollars to banks(supported by progressives and neocons) allowing them to do whatever the fuck they wanted with it

Why do you blame the failures of your shitty immoral system on ours?

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you're not this stupid...

[Anonymous No.3494550]

>>3494540
>left
>libertarian

0/10

[Anonymous No.3494552]

>>3494540
>ALL RIGHT WINGERS ARE RACIST AND WANT TO KILL EVERYONE

Wow, stay classy you dishonest sadistic retards.

Does anyone here take this irrational cult member seriously?

[Anonymous No.3494553]

>>3494517
Most economists think a welfare state is a good idea and most of them favor redistribution of wealth too. You can't claim to represent a scientific mainstream opinion.

[Anonymous No.3494555]

When all else fails, and you're losing an arguement...
Yell RACISS!

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494557]

>>3494548
>we use the word socialism in it's accurate sense
What is Sweden?


>not the result of massive government regulation and the fed loaning billions of dollars to banks
Okay, this is your example of restrictive regulation
>allowing them to do whatever the fuck they wanted with it
And then you dicked it up in the same sentence.

>unlike you who screams capitalism at everything bad in the world that is NOT capitalism.
Greentext it. Greentext where I did what you just accused me of.

>>3494550
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

[Anonymous No.3494562]

>>3494557
What is Sweden?
The rape capital of Europe, thanks to socialist immigration ideas and dunecoons.

[Anonymous No.3494563]

>>3494555
From what I have seen, the libertarians' arguments here were mostly based on funny pictures and yelling "lol ur stupid". They didn't have sound economic arguments (their opponents did) and didn't offer any evidence that their sloppy theory of the perfect market makes sense.

By the way, the last Nobel prizes for economics went mostly to economists whose works didn't support the theory of the perfect free market.

[Anonymous No.3494571]

>>3494553
>Most economists
Most "economists" are keynesian social engineers, not economists.

>You can't claim to represent a scientific mainstream opinion.
I never said I did. I'm like Copernicus.

[Anonymous No.3494578]

>>3494562
You'll be hard-pressed to find a country that immigrates more people than the US.

[Anonymous No.3494581]

>>3494557
>What is Sweden?
A capitalist country with a welfare state.

>Okay, this is your example of restrictive regulation
>>allowing them to do whatever the fuck they wanted with it
>And then you dicked it up in the same sentence.
It restricted the PEOPLE, not the banks you fucking retard.

How does it feel to lose this argument and be in favor of more corporate welfare. I bet you voted obama didn't you?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
Just because you call yourself something doesn't make it true.
I can't call myself a bear for example. I can't join a group of human beings that think we are bears. We still are not bears.

Anyways, why do you worship slavery? You know your system is unworkable and will not benefit you in the least.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3494582]

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494583]

>>3494562
HAL_9000: CALIBRATION COMPLETE. SET TO "BATSHIT IGNORANT"

Don't bother replying, I argued with dozens of your type on /new/. Very unentertaining.

[Anonymous No.3494584]

>>3494571
>Most "economists" are keynesian social engineers, not economists.
Most economists know more about economics than you do.

>You can't claim to represent a scientific mainstream opinion.
Nice delusions of grandeur, but you are more like conspiracy theorists that aliens landed on earth.
Unlike you, Copernicus knew what he was doing.

[Anonymous No.3494586]

>people actually believing one man or a group of people with all the power can make decisions for everyone else and direct resources efficiantly

[Anonymous No.3494591]

>>3494583
>>3494583
>MASSIVE IMMIGRATION, DAT WILL SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS

[Anonymous No.3494599]

>>3494581
>A capitalist country with a welfare state.
Which works perfectly well. Sweden is one of the best places to live and usually ranks among the countries with the highest quality of life. Its economy is healthy and growing too and it has a very democratic government. So far, social democracy is the perfect balance of Capitalism and welfare and has proven to work way better than pure capitalism or socialism.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494600]

>>3494581
I do not live in America.

>It restricted the PEOPLE, not the banks you fucking retard.
Gee, really?

>Just because you call yourself something doesn't make it true.
No shit, sherlock.

>Anyways, why do you worship slavery? You know your system is unworkable and will not benefit you in the least.

Anyways, why do you worship corporations? You know your system is unworkable and will not benefit in the least.

[Anonymous No.3494602]

>>3494584
>Most economists know more about economics than you do.
I would have to disagree.
>Nice delusions of grandeur, but you are more like conspiracy theorists that aliens landed on earth.
Except that you're wrong. We value logic, unlike you who ignores basic economic fallacies and believes in leftist nonsense.
Printing money does NOT create real economic growth, stop pretending it does.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3494605]

[Anonymous No.3494608]

>>3494586
No one believes that and it's the same fallacy as before. You don't have to argue for a planned economy to support regulation.

Considering that you have to resort to greetext and pictures to bring your (non-existent) argument across I think that you simply have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't try to refute actual arguments for some time now, so I guess you simply can't.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494610]

>>3494602

>>Most economists know more about economics than you do.

>I would have to disagree.

You think you know more about economics than people who dedicate their careers to the subject?

MON VISAGE

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494611]

>>3494602
So wait, you say, you know more about economics, than a person that studied for years about the entire subject of economics?

Oh, hello Mr. Bernanke.

[Anonymous No.3494616]

>>3494602
>I would have to disagree.
You have a degree in economics?

>Except that you're wrong. We value logic, unlike you who ignores basic economic fallacies and believes in leftist nonsense.
Modern economics has a mathematical and scientific background. Much unlike Austrian economics, which is mostly philosophy and avoids an actually scientific approach.

[Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U No.3494619]

[Anonymous No.3494625]

>>3494513

The Great Depression you stupid fuck. Until then the government was incredibly laissez-faire.

[Anonymous No.3494627]

Here's proof that the free market works-
The United States became the most powerful, prosperous nation on Earth, between the 1790s, and 1920s. Using free market economics, and currency backed with materials.
The Federal Reserve comes in, in 1913, and begins it's slow, icy grip on the blooming superpower. By the 1930s, the US sees the greatest economic collapse in modern history, the first of many economic problems. Inflation grows by 600% in 20 years. Labor Unions seize control over most American industry. Organized crime shows up, and begins dominating cities.
Massive international wars spring up every decade. Death becomes highly profitable. The poor become a commodity. The media is used to spread fear and hatred.
And here we are, in the sunset of our nation, brought down by the very thing our forefathers warned us about.
You were warned, but the illusion of "free school/medicine/food/retirement" captivated you.
The money has to come from somewhere.

[Anonymous No.3494628]

>>3494600
>>3494600
>Gee, really?

LOL yes gee really.

Why are you acting like I haven't completely destroyed your argument?

The 2007 crash wasn't caused by the "hurrdurr free market" wasn't it? It was caused by government regulation.

LOL oh boy you're stupid.

>Anyways, why do you worship corporations?
I don't I think they should be restrained by the market(not in bed with government) and not force me to buy their products.
Idiot.

[Anonymous No.3494631]

>>3494611
>>3494610
LOL

There are people that "devote their lives to the subject" but still don't understand basic economics

The field right now is really embarrassing.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494632]

>>3494627

The united states had like big ol' recessions every 4 or 5 years from 1850-1900.

Juhs saiyin

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494634]

>>3494631

What are these basic concepts that are not understood?

[Anonymous No.3494635]

>>3494602

>leftist

I do not think it means what you think it means. Currently you're calling anyone who disagrees with you 'leftist', which just makes you look like an extremist, retarded nut.

[Anonymous No.3494637]

>>3494631
Okay, if you say so it must be true.
(Are you fucking kidding me?)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3494640]

>>3494628
>The 2007 crash wasn't caused by the "hurrdurr free market" wasn't it? It was caused by government regulation.

Welp, i'm off to eat dinner and probably go to bed. Now you can freely think that you've won the argument.

[Anonymous No.3494641]

>>3494628

Please leave.

It was caused by the deregulation of the banks in the '80s and '90s that allowed irresponsible lending. How the hell can that have been caused by the government?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494642]

/sci/ is crazy tonight

[Anonymous No.3494643]

>>3494627

You really believe this? So why is it that the hands-free, laissez-faire attitude of the US government in the 1920s led straight to the Great Depression?

[Anonymous No.3494646]

>>3494642
It's just vocal minorities that fuck up everything with their irrational arguments. Just like in real life.

[Anonymous No.3494651]

>>3494643
The Great Depression was engineered by the Fed to kill the gold and silver backed currency once and for all.
It worked marvelously to that effect.
With nothing binding the dollar, the Federal Reserve had full control of the value of money, and it's distribution, which is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that only the government can mint coin and create money, and only with gold and silver.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494653]

>>3494651

Yes... well... okay... if you say so....

[Anonymous No.3494654]

>>3494651

Oh dear, you're a conspiracy theorist.

I'm outta here.

[Anonymous No.3494658]

>>3494640
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

LOL

Are you ACTUALLY ignoring this?

LOL dude, come on. DUDE, just face the facts.

Do you have anything to respond to my point at all?

It's like you realized that you were clearly wrong and then said "no u, i win, u suk" and then left.

[Anonymous No.3494659]

>>3494654

[Anonymous No.3494660]

>>3494643
>>3494643
Except that it wasn't. The fed inflated a massive bubble.

I thought all smart people knew t-
Oh wait, you're a liberal.

[Anonymous No.3494663]

>>3494640
Wow, never have I seen Inurdaes get told so hard/

[Anonymous No.3494669]

>>3494641
>>3494641
>It was caused by the deregulation of the banks in the '80s and '90s that allowed irresponsible lending.

LOL oh my fucking fuck.

Who gave them the money to do this you stupid child?
Who forced them to give loans to poor and stupid people at gunpoint?

It was REGULATION not deregulation that caused this, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3494671]

>>3494660
>>3494659
>>3494658

By your logic, creationists win all their arguments because people give up arguing with them.

Face it, you're an illogical, extremist retard.

[Anonymous No.3494673]

>>3494663

SAMEEEEEEFAAAAAAAG!

The argument was "It was regulation!". No reasons or explanations were given, but that was enough to think you told him? Lol.

[Anonymous No.3494676]

>>3494669

Forced them? The free-market forced them with their profit incentive. Stupid fuck.

It was ILLEGAL to make loans like that until deregulation.

[Anonymous No.3494677]

>>3494673
>>3494673
lol did you even see what I wrote to him before about the fed? Click back a few posts dumbshit.

and no im not a samefag, I don't even come here usually.

[Anonymous No.3494678]

>>3494660

Proof, please?

I can back up my arguments, but so far you've claimed stuff that isn't supported by anyone except you.

[Anonymous No.3494680]

>>3494654
It's not a conspiracy.
And it doesn't invalidate anything.
You should pic up a history, look where the money was flowing in 1929. It all leads to our friends in the Fed.
Tell me, if the fed was such a good thing, why meet in secret to develop it? Why get it pushed through on Christmas with an almost empty congress? Why make the economy and tax code near-impossible to understand?
The Rothchilds had tried to grasp the US several times before 1913. Andrew Jackson successfully fought them and made them fuck off.
Kennedy was on the brink of dismantling the Fed, with Executive Order 11110, which was to be the first in several amendments to the law in order to get the US government control over it's money again.
Kennedy was shot not much later.
LBJ quickly cancelled the order.
The Federal reserve, a private bank, issues currency to the US government, at interest. This creates perpetual debt.
If the US government made the money, the American People would not have the debt to the Fed over them. The Fed is a middleman that makes a huge amount of money.
Basically, a loan shark. No, a loan Megalodon.

[Anonymous No.3494681]

>>3494659

>Implying something that's not got any support in the mainstream community as the cause for something isn't a conspiracy.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3494682]

I have to leave now. I have important business to attend to on my home planet.

[Anonymous No.3494689]

>>3494676
>The free-market forced them with their profit incentive
>free market forced them

I actually laughed out loud at that one.

In a free market banks are restrained by how much money they have, and they use this as a signal to find out how much money they can loan out without losing money or going bankrupt. If the government gives them massive amounts of money then the signal is distorted and they can give out as many loans as they'd like. This creates a bubble.

Deregulation in a free market doesn't matter and is a good thing because the banks still won't loan out money they DO NOT HAVE.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.3494691]

>>3494678
See there's this magic website called google and....

[Anonymous No.3494693]

>>3494689

Oh dear, you can't comprehend rhetoric, can you?

Maybe I should have put 'forced' in double-quotes, just to make it /really/ easy for you.

[Anonymous No.3494694]

>>3494681
Then you're wrong. Retard.

Even if it is a conspiracy theory, it doesn't make it wrong at all.

[Anonymous No.3494695]

>>3494689
>because the banks still won't loan out money they DO NOT HAVE
Ahaha, yeah right. Of course they will do that do increase their profits. It absolutely common nowadays.

[Anonymous No.3494697]

>>3494693
lol okay then.

I just explained everything there anyways. Just read it and reply.

[Anonymous No.3494700]

>>3494694

So where's mainstream support for this crackpot idea? And no, it doesn't, but it certainly doesn't make it right or even vaguely likely.

[Anonymous No.3494701]

>>3494694
Sure, and perhaps the core of the earth is made out of cheese. May be true, who knows. It only thing that matters is how credible your theory is. And if there is not much evidence to support it you can disregard it as a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.3494702]

>>3494681
>mainstream media
OH GOD MY SIDES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.3494706]

>>3494689

The problem wasn't banks loaning money they did not have, it was that they loaned it to people who could not pay it back because it gave a good initial short-term return.

[Anonymous No.3494709]

>>3494702

Did I say 'mainstream media'?

No, and for good reason.

[Anonymous No.3494711]

>>3494702
He said mainstream community, not media. Seems like you have to make things up to respond by posting stupid pictures.

[Anonymous No.3494712]

>mainstream media
>2011
"We're getting reports now...Building Seven has collapsed."

>10 minutes LATER, building 7 collapses

[Anonymous No.3494714]

>>3494711
>>3494701

Are you me?

[Anonymous No.3494719]

>>3494659
>he thinks a commodity-based currency which can be manipulated by the elites is a good idea.

You do know the idea of gold-backed currencies was pushed by the English bankers such as the Rothchilds ..right?

The assassination of Caesar was primarily fueled by the change from copper to gold coins.

In fact, I have yet to see a historical example of the gold currency being successful throughout human history, yet the goldbugs always say it's awesome.

Last time I checked, Tally Sticks and the Greenbacks saved empires.

[Anonymous No.3494720]

>>3494712

>Implying I said 'mainstream media'.
>Implying you haven't latched onto an idea (hilariously incorrectly) and have decided to run with it.

[Anonymous No.3494722]

>>3494711
>>3494709
>mainstream
Jesus fucking Christ, what happened to you 4chan?
You used to be smarter than this!

[Anonymous No.3494724]

>>3494706
I KNOW, dumbshit.

But they had MORE money, thus a vastly greater ability to give loans to poor people and bad risk investments. It's unsustainable and HAS to collapse on itself sometime. It's inevitable.
The same thing happened during the dot com bubble. Did you really think all of those retarded websites were really worth that much money? Not at all.


It's kind of like thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.3494727]

>>3494712
>mainstream media reports.
>only the BBC which they admitted was a fuck up on their behalf
>no one died at Building 7 and was expected to collapse by the FDNY
>"OMG CONSPIRACY"

[Anonymous No.3494733]

>>3494724

So you're saying that they were unable to stop themselves and to lend responsibly?

You're like the person that blames games for causing people to get obese and ill, rather than the faggots who didn't have enough self-discipline to get up and go outside.

[Anonymous No.3494734]

>>3494719
>In fact, I have yet to see a historical example of the gold currency being successful throughout human history, yet the goldbugs always say it's awesome.
You do know it's what people used(along with silver, salt, and other valuable materials) before the 1900s, right?

[Anonymous No.3494735]

>>3494719
>implying the elites can manipulate commodities
>implying the rothchilds don't LOVE central banking and control

>In fact, I have yet to see a historical example of the gold currency being successful throughout human history
How about the united states of america, you fucking retard.
Whenever we had a gold standard we had the highest levels of growth and it helped the poor the most.

[Anonymous No.3494738]

>>3494727
WTF BBC got pwned? When?

[Anonymous No.3494741]

>>3494722

>Implying you're not ignoring what I (and someone else) have said.
>Implying you're not just trolling now.

[Anonymous No.3494742]

>>3494733
Oh my fuck, you really don't get it do you?

[Anonymous No.3494748]

Anyone who doesn't think socialist policies are good for society is simply stupid as fuck--as long as it is kept reasonably limited. Sweden is a great country economically due to this.

The only problems we really face, are not welfare entitlements, but the simple massive amount of waste our public sector engages in, which causes many bubbles and economic woes.

At least 50% of our defense spending is complete waste, for example. It's money going straight into the pockets of private military contractors, making material we don't need.

Additionally, if you decry SANE regulation, you are fucking retarded. Canada had some lending limitations in its banks. Guess what? Canada wasn't hit as hard by the recession as most countries that deregulate.

Regulations on monopolies/big banks that decrease their power are ABSOLUTELY healthy for an economy. If you don't understand curbing big bullies is good for the market, you're a fucking idiot.

It is however when the regulations apply to smaller businesses, and get in the way of them challenging the bigger ones, that we begin to see problems.

tl;dr, you must integrate the ideas of many economic and social philosophies in governance to make a truly healthy society. Social democracy is the closest we've gotten to it but it still is not as good as we can get, by virtue of being tied to the massive trust-esque international corporate alliances in order to economically function.

[Anonymous No.3494749]

>>3494742

No, I get it entirely. In fact, I don't think the banks should have been in a position to decide whether to loan responsibly - I just think the regulation should have remained in place that forced it.

What am I not getting?

[Anonymous No.3494750]

I love the Fed! Because I poast on 4chan, and the government takes money from hoarding rich men and gives me free college and free ramen soup!
>implying the rich hoard their money, and don't spend, and invest it


Didja hear?! $16,000,000,000,000 was dolled out at ZERO percent interest to bail out failing banks, while people were losing their jobs, homes, children, and lives.
I LOVE THE FED!

[Anonymous No.3494751]

>>3494735
The best times for the poor was after WWII, because at this time economic inequality became smaller than ever before and the middle class was created. It was only when Republicans turned to voodoo economics that this trend was reversed and the US is the unequal third world society that it is now.

[Anonymous No.3494755]

>>3494748
Oh and I forgot to mention, and agree with libertarians on this, that privately controlled central banking is also one of our prime economic issues. Similarly, anyone who denies this is ignorant.

[Anonymous No.3494759]

>>3494733
>So you're saying that they were unable to stop themselves and to lend responsibly?
If they didn't have more money than was truly available in the economy for them at that time(like there would be in a free market) then they would be UNABLE to make horribly stupid bad loans and investments. If they did they would go bankrupt and another, more responsible company would take their place.

[Anonymous No.3494761]

>>3494748
"Anyone who doesn't think socialist policies are good for society is simply stupid as fuck".

Very intellectual way of making your point.

Just trollin' please ignore me.

[Anonymous No.3494762]

>>3494750
Of course, the wealth will trickle down! (There is no evidence that this happens but who cares about facts!)

[Anonymous No.3494764]

>>3494755
And let's not forget everyone, that the main culprit behind these issues are lobbying.

That is what has allowed big money to corrupt and manipulate our government into what is most profitable for them.

If the founding fathers had known how huge industry would become, they certainly would have banned lobbying aka fucking bribery in the constitution.

[Anonymous No.3494766]

I think the fed is a pretty cool guy. eh creates perpetual debt and makes me a commodity to be sold and doesn't afraid of congress.

[Anonymous No.3494769]

>>3494669
>DEREGULATION caused the housing bubble.

Watch "Inside Job", so much misinformation in your post.

This is what the FREE MARKET FINANCIAL SERVICES did.

>Lender gives a shitty loan that he knows it won't be paid back.
>"Hey investment banker, want this loan? I don't want it."
>"Sure, I will sell it"
>Lender sells loan to investment bank
>Lender no longer worried about defaults since he just transferred risk to the investment bank. He continues to give out more shitty loans to sell to the investment banks.

Meanwhile, at JP Morgan
>"Alright gents, we need to package this shit loan to prime loans. We will then sell it to the retail investor."
>"What about the rating sir?"
>"We will bribe the fucks at Moody's and Standand's and Poor."
>"K"
>AAA rating complete
>"Now what?"
>"We are going to sell this crap to other financial institutions and the retail investor. Then we will place derivative bets on it so they will fail."
>"Wait...what? We can do that."
>"Yes you fucking idiot. We didn't fork out 15 billion dollars to lobby the financial industry for nothing. Our derivative market is unregulated."
>"K."

Meanwhile, at AIG.
>"Hey guys, we are getting a lot of Credit Default Swaps requests, but we have no money to back them up!"
>"Doesn't matter. I doubt it will be a big crash and besides...the government doesn't even check this. We can have a million dollars worth of this insurance crap with nothing to back it up."
>"Really?"
>"Yep...unregulated bro. JP Morgan and other banks helped us out, and we can do this now."

[Anonymous No.3494770]

>>3494749
>>3494749
>I just think the regulation should have remained in place that forced it.

Also yeah, that "regulation" doesn't actually DO anything except decrease production and investments.
In a free market that regulation would be unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.3494771]

>>3494761
I will call anyone that ignores evidence stupid as fuck. I also cited evidence right after, namely that SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES PROVIDE THE BEST STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THEIR CITIZENS.

You sir, are stupid as fuck.

[Anonymous No.3494772]

>>3494766
If you can't contribute anything to this thread then please fuck off. People are trying to discuss stuff here.

[Anonymous No.3494773]

>>3494762
The only one that can give you wealth, is yourself.
The government cannot give you wealth, and the banks make it their business to take your wealth.

[Anonymous No.3494775]

>>3494769
>FREE MARKET CAUSED THE COLLAPSE

HOLY FUCK YOU FUCKING RETARD. We just spent the entire thread proving that this was indeed NOT true.

Can you at least read the thread before continuing and being a retard.

[Anonymous No.3494780]

>>3494762
>>3494762
>There is no evidence that this happens but who cares about facts!

0/10

LOL Are you not typing on a computer, and in a house and eating food right now you fucking ungrateful retard?

[Anonymous No.3494783]

>>3494735
Please name one incident of this happening.

Last time I checked, the greenbacks saved your asses in the civil war. During the late 1800s, many Americans were against the idea of gold-backed currencies because it benefited the elite.

The Wizard of Oz (the book, not the movie) was a symbolic gesture to this incident. The "Secret of Oz" documentary, made by the same guy who did Money Masters, points this out.

[Anonymous No.3494784]

>>3494771
Lol man you must be kidding me. I even wrote in the post that I was just trolling and you responded to it as if I meant it for serious.

[Anonymous No.3494785]

>>3494775
>We just spent the entire thread proving that this was indeed NOT true
You didn't prove anything. You posted funny pictures the whole time and didn't try to counter even one argument.

[Anonymous No.3494786]

http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

>Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

>What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

>To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

[Anonymous No.3494791]

>>3494780
Since trickle-down voodoo ecnomics started the wealth gap in the US has widened to third-world levels. (I don't live in the US, fortunately. I'm just telling you the facts.)

[Anonymous No.3494792]

[Anonymous No.3494794]

>>3494785
see:
>>3494660
>>3494680
>>3494689
>>3494706
>>3494724
>>3494734
>>3494735
>>3494750
>>3494759
>>3494770

and countless other posts

[Anonymous No.3494795]

>>3494791
Why the fuck does the wealth gap matter?

Why is this important to you retards?

[Anonymous No.3494796]

Why do libertarians argue as if welfare is the root cause of economic problems?

It is not. Lobbying and the manipulation of government to increase profits are. The tax code has been fucked so hard, it actually benefits larger entities more than smaller businesses.

Small business not having a leg up in economy = monopoly = economic stagnation.

Let's not forget that lobbying is the prime reason for the creation of the Federal Reserve in the first place..

[Anonymous No.3494798]

The fed makes it so wages stay stagnant and liberals blame it on capitalism.

It's really sad....

[Anonymous No.3494799]

>>3494792
>He thinks the executive order 11110 had anything to do with silver-backed currencies.
>laughingsluts.jpg

[Anonymous No.3494800]

>>3494791
That's because the poor and middle class insist on buying trinkets and other assorted shit, giving their money to the rich, instead of making and growing shit themselves.
Blame yourself, not the rich.

[Anonymous No.3494801]

>>3494795
>implying that a small wealth gap isn't a sign of economic growth and stability.

[Anonymous No.3494802]

>>3494735

The US had the gold standard from the 1940s to the 1960s!?

First I heard about it.

[Anonymous No.3494805]

[Anonymous No.3494807]

>>3494791
The interesting fact is that while in the third world, people are starving to death, "poor" Americans have cars, television, air conditioning, and are fed by the donations of rich people. Go ask a random guy in eastern europe if he minds the people who are richer than him; I'm sure he'll tell you he'd rather live in the US.

[Anonymous No.3494808]

>>3494786
I think it's decently good that it was done. Many wealthy bankers all around the world have been enriched in a very generous way. As far as you are not in US it's a good news. Most of the world is focusing on China anyway so shitstorm in US will be an inconvenience but it will not disrupt our current deals with the main perspective player - China.
Are you slightly mad?

[Anonymous No.3494810]

>>3494800

1. Get everyone to stop buying consumer goods and start investing their money

2. Consumer goods are impossible to sell; manufacturing sector is decimated

3. Massive amounts of saved money with few goods leads to hyperinflation

4. And thus keynes was defied and the economy made devoid of consumer demand. The end.

[Anonymous No.3494811]

>>3494796
>Why do libertarians argue as if welfare is the root cause of economic problems?
It's not the root cause, but one of our main causes. See pic.

>Lobbying and the manipulation of government to increase profits are.
We agree, more than you do.

>The tax code has been fucked so hard, it actually benefits larger entities more than smaller businesses.
We know, holy shit.

Our immediate problems are our welfare state as they are the major contributor to the debt.

[Anonymous No.3494812]

For those who say unregulated markets work best..

How do you explain Canada...which was the last to enter the recession, and the first to leave it? How do you explain that they have some of the strongest banks (in terms of handling a recession) in the world?

What about Iceland, which had an extremely regulated industry and was considered an economic paradise...and when they decided to cut regulation, it is now in an economic depression?

[Anonymous No.3494814]

>>3494802
That period of time only saw growth because of a massive war killing off millions of people.
War needs supplies.

It barely beat out the booming late 1800s, when we weren't in any major wars.

[Anonymous No.3494816]

>>3494807
Guess why the people in the third world are starving?

Because the rich are perpetually leeching off of the poor in the first world, not actually benefiting them at all.

If policy were changed to make the market truly rational and free, nobody would be starving at this point. Our rich would also have less money.

[Anonymous No.3494817]

>>3494802
Yep. Gold convertible currency until 1971. Obviously it was a bullshit fake commodity backing system, and the period leading up the the 1920s was much more prosperous.

[Anonymous No.3494818]

>>3494814
You mean the industrial revolution which was more focused on how a business is run? That had nothing to do with precious metals mate.

[Anonymous No.3494820]

>>3494811
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.3494822]

>>3494816
No, they're starving because they're shitskins, that have too large a population, and not enough food growing potential, and they can't even figure out that bathing and shitting in your drinking water might be a bad idea.
They're stupid, and Darwin is at work.

[Anonymous No.3494824]

>>3494811
Don't be a fucking idiot. If spending, market regulation and taxes were properly managed, we would be able to support the welfare state while reducing debt.

As if debt is even a fucking issue. The national debt does not function like a credit card.

[Anonymous No.3494827]

>USA
>pushing people back

That's a terrible axiom to argue from.

[Anonymous No.3494830]

>>3494822
Here's the problem with your "they're in a shitty condition and darwin is eliminating them" theory.

Humans are cockroaches.

When faced with bad situations, humans will mate a lot more and produce more children.

Not giving food, water, and housing to niggers is making them reproduce even more.

[Anonymous No.3494831]

>>3494812
>>3494812
>How do you explain Canada...which was the last to enter the recession, and the first to leave it? How do you explain that they have some of the strongest banks (in terms of handling a recession) in the world?

Canada here. We have an abundance of natural resources and our banks didn't print massive amounts of money.

ALSO other countries banks invested in a federal reserve bubble but ours didn't, yes it was possibly because of our regulated banks, BUT if america was a free market, we wouldn't need these regulations.

So again, it's the fault of the government. The government of another country.

[Anonymous No.3494834]

>>3494824
>Don't be a fucking idiot. If spending, market regulation and taxes were properly managed, we would be able to support the welfare state while reducing debt.
Why the fuck would we want to do that?
We should slowly fase out and privatize the welfare state.

[Anonymous No.3494835]

>>3494830
And more of them are going to die.
Let them.

[Anonymous No.3494843]

>>3494834
Phasing out the welfare state is certainly possible, but it would need to be generational, and there would have to be massive education system reforms to make society more collectivist.

But cutting it before we get rid of the main tumors is not going to do shit.

[Anonymous No.3494849]

>>3494835
I don't think you understand.. That's not how it works. More will die maybe, but the net result of giving them food, water, shelter and education, free of charge, would reduce the population more than the increased birthrates and deathrates.

That's literally how it works.

[Anonymous No.3494853]

>>3494831
>Canada here. We have an abundance of natural resources and our banks didn't print massive amounts of money.

You're a fucking idiot already.

We don't have a reserve ratio, so our banks CANNOT print money. Our money supply is controlled by the overnight market, with the Bank of Canada being a major player to make sure inflation/interest rates stay within an acceptable range (1-3%, 2% being ideal)

>ALSO other countries banks invested in a federal reserve bubble but ours didn't, yes it was possibly because of our regulated banks, BUT if america was a free market, we wouldn't need these regulations.

Ugh...CIBC invested heavily into the US market and had a major loss due to do it.

You guys are arguing against the system, yet you have no idea what the system is about.

And this is why no one takes your shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.3494855]

>>3494834
Yeah, why the hell would we provide a minimum standard of living the population?

[Anonymous No.3494857]

>>3494849
At the expense of someone else.
Better to let them starve.
If they can't solve the issue themselves, then they deserve nothing but extinction, and eventually extinction will happen.
AIDS is nature trying to make this happen, but people like Bill Gates are getting in the way.

[Anonymous No.3494859]

>>3494843

>phasing out the welfare state
>possible

You're kidding, right? You will never, ever find the political backbone to get that though. The reality of the matter is that we're going to have the welfare state in the First World for the foreseeable future. So the productive question becomes "How can we maintain the welfare state without ruining the country?"

[Anonymous No.3494860]

>>3494857

>personification of nature

fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3494861]

>>3494857
>At the expense of someone else.
Better to let them starve.
Oh, you so edgy. Seriously, how old are you?

[Anonymous No.3494865]

>>3494859
> "How can we maintain the welfare state without ruining the country?"
That's easily possible. Drastically cut defense spending, end the Bush tax cuts and increase taxes on the rich. Public healthcare too, because the US pays twice as much for health care as other countries (another win for the free market).

[Anonymous No.3494867]

>>3494859
It would not be a political thing. As I said, it would have to be a societal thing. Charity would have to become fashionable, so to speak, and would have to evolve to serve the same functions as the welfare state.

It's possible to do this, but it would have to be a very slow shift, and would have to be accompanied by educational reforms.

[Anonymous No.3494871]

>>3494865
>because the US pays twice as much for health care as other countries (another win for the free market).

Heh...exactly.

The worst part is according to the Economics of Scale, the US should have one of the cheapest public insurance costs per person.

[Anonymous No.3494879]

Free market only works on certain industries (see the IT) or the retail market.

To suggest free markets would work in every industry (oil, healthcare, etc) is just plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.3494882]

>>3494853
>We don't have a reserve ratio, so our banks CANNOT print money.
I KNOW retard. I meant the bank of canada didn't print money.

>Ugh...CIBC invested heavily into the US market and had a major loss due to do it.
Okay, I thought you said they were regulated and didn't invest too heavily into the us system.


>And this is why no one takes your shit seriously.
No, only derptarded leftists don't take us seriously. Their track record speaks for itself.

[Anonymous No.3494886]

>>3494860
Science has proven that nature, the natural world, has failsafes for things like population.
The wolves keep the deer in check, if you will.
>>3494861
Old enough to know that teaching a man to fish is far more effective and sustainable than giving a man a fish.

[Anonymous No.3494887]

>>3494879
>To suggest free markets would work in every industry (oil, healthcare, etc) is just plain stupid.

LOL but it fucking has, why would you even ignore this?
The more important the industry the more free the market needs to be.

Healthcare is the number one thing I want privatized in america. I WANT massive technological innovation, you clearly do not.

[Anonymous No.3494896]

>>3494865
I don't think socialized healthcare is the answer. I think decreased regulation would really help out healthcare, along with a tax credit system.

If it were easier to jump into healthcare, as it is not with the huge amount of regulation, and if the industry were simply regulated to be OPEN and HONEST, the supply of health services would dramatically increase, thereby decreasing the price.

That's all hypothetical though.

[Anonymous No.3494897]

>>3494871
>>3494865

>US HAS A FREE MARKET IN HEALTHCARE

I CAN'T STOP LOLLING AT THE STUPIDITY.

Healthcare in USA needs to be privatized right fucking now.

[Anonymous No.3494898]

>>3494879
The free market worked in healthcare for decades.
Then came government protections, like patents, copyrights, and immunity from suit and prosecution.
Now, the FDA is run by the health industry.

[Anonymous No.3494902]

>>3494882
>Okay, I thought you said they were regulated and didn't invest too heavily into the us system.

You think our banks don't invest globally? What does our bank regulation have to do with the international banks?

In fact, one of the things about our regulation is that these banks have to create SEPARATE FIRMS for different types of businesses. This way, the bank doesn't take grandma's deposit money and invests it into China and India. This wasn't even in the case in the States, where banks can freely screw around with their depositor's money.

Again, proper regulation at work.

[Anonymous No.3494903]

>>3494865

Americans pay a premium for having the majority of bioscience R&D (and thus, drugs, surgical equipment and techniques, etc) done "in-house," so to speak. The premium is probably too high, but things which reduce the cost of clinical trials and eventually, comprehensive and inexpensive gene sequencing will cut that premium in time. Europeans don't let drugs which have not been tested (on Americans, mostly) through into their healthcare system.

There's also a cultural difference in healthcare systems between the EU and North America. In the EU there is a vastly greater reliance on the "family doctor" which provides generalized care to people. This in of itself is a massive cost-cutter, because you go to a single guy who is authorized to treat you for a wide variety of problems. Contrast this to the US, where medicine took the specialist route since World War II and it's actually not that surprising that Americans pay more for healthcare.

>>3494867

You're talking about reducing or in some cases shutting down a government service. To think that it will not necessarily be a political issue is a fantasy.

[Anonymous No.3494908]

>>3494898
>The free market worked in healthcare for decades.
No it didn't. What do you think was the point of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? And no, people weren't healthy and happy before. They just died when they were poor.

[Anonymous No.3494912]

>>3494908
" They just died when they were poor."
what's wrong problem just solved itself

[Anonymous No.3494913]

>>3494887
>Healthcare is the number one thing I want privatized in america. I WANT massive technological innovation, you clearly do not.

>implying healthcare insurance has anything to do with technological innovation

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT KIND SIR

What's next...the automobile insurance company CREATES cars?

[Anonymous No.3494914]

>>3494859
There is wide support in the population for services like Medicaid and Social Security. The country wants it, deal with it. You either contribute to society or you can fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3494916]

>>3494902
>>3494902
>This way, the bank doesn't take grandma's deposit money and invests it into China and India.
That's really fucking stupid and unnecessarily in a free market.

All it does is limit capital.

If all countries around the world were free markets then it would be unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.3494918]

>>3494908
You know nothing.
Drop that copy of the god delusion, and pick up a history book.

[Anonymous No.3494925]

>>3494914

Unlike >>3494843 I don't see the welfare state as being a detriment. Rather the opposite, actually.

[Anonymous No.3494926]

>>3494175
>We need to end central banking
fine
>and lower taxes
Corporate, maybe. But the higher income tax brackets need to go up a LOT. Trickle-down economics is a lie, and now we've proven it more than once in this country.

[Anonymous No.3494927]

>You're talking about reducing or in some cases shutting down a government service. To think that it will not necessarily be a political issue is a fantasy
It wouldn't be an "issue". If charity evolved to displace it it would simply no longer be needed.

[Anonymous No.3494931]

>>3494913
Who the FUCK said I wanted health insurance you retard?

Health insurance is a creature of government.

People would pay out of pocket for most things in a free market. Cut out the middle man. This will make the price go down incredibly and give money to medical innovation companies.

[Anonymous No.3494932]

>>3494914
I contribute nothing.
I pay no federal taxes.
I have over $71000 saved for retirement.
I need no social security or medicare.

[Anonymous No.3494935]

>>3494925
I don't think the welfare state is a detriment. I think it's less efficient than private charity would be if we were to be able to implement it.

[Anonymous No.3494937]

>>3494925
I see, sorry. I agree of course.

[Anonymous No.3494938]

>>3494908
FACT: People paid the equivalent of a day's wage for an entire year's world of medical care.

u mad?

[Anonymous No.3494943]

>>3494916
Are you fucking stupid?

If I put my money into a bank and decide I want GICs, that doesn't give the bank permission to use my money in some venture junior mining stock that might destroy my principal.

Also, limiting capital? If the bank is good enough, YOU KNOW IN A FREE MARKET, they should be able to attract this capital from the retail investor to invest into these high risk companies without using the capital from risk-averse depositors.

In other words, companies might have to actually IMPROVE their firms to get the business they need. Throwing out regulation only lowers that standard.

Good job, moron.

[Anonymous No.3494944]

>>3494935
>if we were to be able to implement it
But we are not. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.3494942]

>>3494926
>rich people already pay more in taxes than the poor ever will
>HEY GUYS WE NEED MORE TAXES ON THE RICH FOR SHANEQUA'S 12 BABIES!

[Anonymous No.3494945]

ITT: Taxes will save the US!

No, they won't. Spending and taxes have a positive correlation in the US. The thought that additional taxation on poor or rich people is kinda fallacious. If state or federal governments could stick to a fucking budget I'd happily give up 80% of my paycheck.

[Anonymous No.3494946]

>There is wide support in the population for services like Medicaid and Social Security. The country wants it, deal with it. You either contribute to society or you can fuck off.

What if I pulled a Timothy McVeigh and killed you for infringing on my basic human rights?

[Anonymous No.3494948]

>>3494942
>implying the percent of a rich person's income is even close to a poor person.

If I make a 200k in a year and the government takes away HALF of that...I would still be happy. Why? I can live life pretty damn easily with 100k.

[Anonymous No.3494951]

>>3494942
They pay less than their share, that's the point you moron. They use tax loopholes and pay even less than middle class families. And the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income anyway.

[Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 No.3494954]

>>3494908
>What do you think was the point of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?
>He thinks that governments only increase their control over industries if it's in the interests of society!
>laughingeconomists.jpg

[Anonymous No.3494956]

Two things I think we can all agree on:

1) Lower barriers to business (corporate taxes, etc)
2) Increase taxes on the rich

[Anonymous No.3494957]

>>3494946
>Timothy McVeigh
Execution. Your choice.

[Anonymous No.3494958]

>>3494944
It's possible. It would have to be a societal thing, starting with the reformation of the education system; the reassertion of *useful* traditional moral values within society, etc.

And as I said it would not be an immediate thing. It would be something slowly leaned into.

[Anonymous No.3494961]

>>3494948
No. You're poor, so the prospect of making 100k makes you happy. If you were expropriated of half the product of your labor, you would be pissed.

[Anonymous No.3494964]

>>3494948
Why should you lose half of your fucking labor-worth to support those that deal crack and shit kids for more food stamps? Or for more wars to kill the enemies of Israel?

[Anonymous No.3494968]

>>3494958
The tea party is largely supported by frightened and greedy people afraid that the poor take too much money. They wouldn't give to charity in a free market either.

[Anonymous No.3494969]

>>3494943
>>3494943
>If I put my money into a bank and decide I want GICs, that doesn't give the bank permission to use my money in some venture junior mining stock that might destroy my principal.
They can if they want. It's your fault for trusting a shitty bank. Banks won't do this if they don't want to go out of business.

[Anonymous No.3494973]

>>3494964
>those that deal crack and shit kids for more food stamps
Holy fuck, you actually buy the conservative lies about welfare queens. The majority of the people don't chose to be unemployed.

[Anonymous No.3494975]

>>3494968
>>3494968
>greedy people

OH NO GREED IS SO BAD HOW DARE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN LIVES AND THE LIVES OF THEIR FAMILY

>They wouldn't give to charity in a free market either.

Fact: republicans give more to charity. Look it up you "greedy" leftist

[Anonymous No.3494981]

>>3494968
I'm a libertarian.
I've personally bought a case of girl scout cookies(to support capitalism), and sat outside a local 7/11 handing cookies out to homeless people.
No government should be allowed to force me to do this. It should be my choice.
That's freedom. It's choice. I thought liberals liked choice?

[Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 No.3494982]

>>3494973
>The majority of the people don't chose to be unemployed.
Indeed. Most are priced out of the labour market by excessive government regulation.

[Anonymous No.3494983]

>>3494957
Lol so? Does killing me bring back the lives of 100s of evil sadistic oppressors?

[Anonymous No.3494986]

>>3494942
But they are so cute why not donate a humble £5k annual donation per baby... They will be good voters unlike YOU since YOU just work day&night only think about paying your bills and in the end end up missing the elections being at work. What a lazy ass you are!

[Anonymous No.3494987]

>>3494981
>I thought liberals liked choice?

0/10

[Anonymous No.3494990]

>>3494973
I've lived with your average welfare recipient.
They ARE just as I spoke(not all, but 85% or so).

[Anonymous No.3494992]

>>3494969
>no shitty bank would do this.

Um...almost every bank in the United States did this. In fact during the 80s when Reagan lifted a lot of the regulation that this happened quite frequently on Wall Street.

[Anonymous No.3494998]

>>3494987
problem, baby killer?

[Anonymous No.3494999]

I CAME INTO THIS THREAD EXPECTING 250 POSTS ON TRANSHUMANISM

INSTEAD IT'S FAGGOTS DISCUSSING ECONOMICS AND POLITICS ON A SCIENCE BOARD

KILL YOURSELVES

[Anonymous No.3495003]

>>3494961
Doesn't matter whether he would be pissed or not. Being part of a society comes with responsibilities.
The point is that the utility of more money becomes smaller and smaller. For poor people, it's a huge difference if they have more money to spend, for someone who is already a millionaire, it doesn't matter that much if you take half of his profits, because he will still be rich and there are very few things he can't buy with the remaining new wealth he has.

[Anonymous No.3495008]

>>3494998

u mad?

[Anonymous No.3495010]

>>3494999
Just watch them being mutually trolled and from time to time add some provocative post to piss them off even more.

[Anonymous No.3495015]

>>3494981
Baw, how nice of you. It's just as generous as that billionaire giving a million dollar to charity. His remaining wealth is still more than the wealth of millions of poor Americans combined, but it certainly was very generous of him.

Seriously, handing cookies out to homeless people doesn't help them. If you want a society based on charity, come back when devote 20% of your income to help homeless people finding homes and jobs.

[Anonymous No.3495017]

>>3495003
That's not a problem. If you are Stalin. However, most people will be preoccupied by the fundamental question of fairness. Let me remind you of the idea of Pareto efficient taxes: if you piss me off enough with your taxes, I will quit my job and leave the country:

[Anonymous No.3495018]

>>3495008
I do believe it's because Obama prayed to god.
He is a Christian, after all.

[Anonymous No.3495022]

>>3494961
Maybe I would be a little pissed, but numbers don't lie. A 100k in my pocket that is not touched by the government would be still have the ability to have a sustainable living standard.

Put it this way...if I could keep 100k a year since the 2008 crash, I could have several pieces of US real estate right now and rent those fuckers out.

You think someone who was making 30k and is taxed by 10k would have that kind of opportunity? Nope. Being rich is beneficial, no matter how large the tax price tag is. Which is why it's stupid as fuck for them to have such a low percentage. A rich person has more opportunities to create income growth, whereas a poor person doesn't.

[Anonymous No.3495026]

>>3494992
FACT: This only happens when central banks print money.

[Anonymous No.3495029]

Poor people are poor because they buy stupid shit.
Rich people are rich because they make the money from the poor.
The middle class is caught between the two, and has to pay for the mistakes of both.

[Anonymous No.3495030]

>>3495018
Obama is agent 6 from Mordor. He's an actual troll.

[Anonymous No.3495031]

>>3495017
Comparing social democracy with Stalin? Are you serious? There is a huge difference in every aspect those ideologies.

> if you piss me off enough with your taxes, I will quit my job and leave the country:
Go ahead, leave. It's the same FUD the corporations spread whenever there is talk about tax increases.

[Anonymous No.3495039]

>>3495029
WOW UR LIKE SO INCITEFUL MAN

[Anonymous No.3495052]

>>3495031
but they ARE leaving

you retard lol

look at china

[Anonymous No.3495060]

>>3495052
Taxes aren't the only thing that causes corporations and people to leave. The evil socialist Scandinavian states have pretty strong economies, even with very high taxes.

The US is losing its competitive advantage because of crumbling infrastructure (originally build by the government) and cuts to research and education.

[Anonymous No.3495079]

>>3495060
Those Scandinavian nations have the following advantages-
1. They're mostly white(though this is changing, and the nations are also losing their economies, HINT HINT)
2. Massive resource pools with low populations

You see how this works?

[Anonymous No.3495084]

>>3495079
1. they are losing their economies? I don't see that.
2. Only Norway has oil. Countries like Denmark or the Netherlands are small and still do exceptionally well.

[Anonymous No.3495088]

>>3495052
They are leaving because they now have a pool of cheap labor by the millions that entered the market. Also, the government seems to favor investment outside the country, so it is a tax benefit as well.

[Anonymous No.3495147]

>>3495079
>2. Massive resource pools with low populations
Yeah, because US wealth is all about natural resources.