Kopikatsu said:
I would like to know what kind of fucked up upbringing you have where you hold to such outdated principals and hold large businesses interests so close to your heart.
It's offical. The protestors are getting stupider.
- Thread starter Kopikatsu
- Start date
I'm not sure what you're talking about before the space, buutt...Jegsimmons said:
After the space. That government programme thing is wrong. Government programmes are famously good at making jobs, too many is the most common criticism. You're also not taking into account the positive externalities. If you still think you're right, I'd like you to identify some government programmes that are just so efficient they're not making enough jobs.
As for putting money in/circulating money through: when you run a deficit, you are putting money in. When you run a perfect balance, you are circulating. When you run a surplus, you are hoarding money. You do not want to hoard in a recession. That would make it worse. I'm still not really sure what your argument is, though.
As for the third thing: pinting money makes debt better because it causes inflation which reduces the interest payments by lowering the effective interest rate. Remember, effective interest rate is Interest rate-Inflation. That's how you can have negative interest rates. You know how inflation reduces the value of your savings? It's the same principal. When you put money in a bank you are lending it to them (that's why they pay you interest). That money in your account is money the bank promises to pay the bearer on demand- that stuff is on the bank notes for a reason. It's a debt they owe you. Inflation reduces the size of the national debt just as it reduces the size of that bank's debt to you.
And let me tell you, the worst possible thing you could possibly suffer is deflation. You do not want that. Better to deal with a little inflation than any deflation.
To be honest, saying that printing money doesn't reduce deficits highlights a pretty huge gap in your knowledge of economics. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Yup.Aglynugga said:
It's called Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks are only obliged to keep something like 8% worth of their total cash in the form of actual notes they can give you. Naturally, they keep the fraction as low as they can because that fraction is money they can't lend or spend; it has to be kept on hand in case you ask for it. Simple as that.
The vast majority of the money in the world does not exist. It's just promises of future money. That's what people are hinting at when they say 'False Economy' or 'False Wealth'. When bankers are making imaginary money via the movement of other bundles of imaginary money, are they actually making anything? In many people's minds, no. For them it's just greed, but the problem is that although those bankers make millions off this imaginary money, they do not suffer any kind of loss or real risk if they fail. Even when they wreck societies in the process.
I mean, when you're being paid over $1,000,000 a year, you just need to play it safe for a few years, then fuck everyone else, fuck your reputation, fuck your country, fuck your shareholders, and fuck your company, because you have enough money saved up to live a long life of luxury regardless of how the world turns around you. You can take ridiculous risks that can destroy your career or your country's economy because you depend on neither anymore because you're just that rich.
And the worst part is that, because they now no longer depend on other people, they feel no debt to the society which facilitated and facilitates their wealth.
Thank you! I made it myself.gummibear76 said:
I was with these people at first, but after reading into all the fucking stupidity I'm starting to think this was not a good way to handle this. It had to be done, but people could have been smart about it.
You aren't going to last long here if you keep on insulting people, just a heads up.AnotherAvatar said:
Also, he's right, that's why he said recorded history.
Nope, I didn't.Sandor [The Hound said:Clegane]1) You completely missed the point.ScreamingNinja said:
2) Err, in the current industrial model, you sorta do. Thanks for using all-caps though to draw attention to how stupid these people are.
And no, you don't. Even if you hate something you can still wear labels, if that's what you really want to. Hell, I hate wearing the flashy labels myself, but almost everything has some form of labelling now. Hell, even Warehouse stuff. Doesn't mean I'm going to run around naked just because douchebags make money offa the gizmo's and gagdets.
See, to say that he doesn't 'get it' implies that you know him, and his motives. So till that's cut and dry, you can't really make any claims against him, just assumptions. Could be he was given all that stuff from birthdays and the like, and decided to wear it.Heeman89 said:
And that second part, I can understand that. On the flipside.. Are they actually on private propery? Or is it public? And on the OTHER flipside, don't the people they're protesting against own alot of land, because they're greedy rich moguls who love to fuck everyone else over? And if that's the case, then where could they protest, when someone they're protesting against controls all the land?
Kopikatsu said:
All the other BS aside, I am sick to death of seeing the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" case as some sort of example of legal abuse. IT WAS NOT.
Maybe you should get some FACTS before you make an ignorant statement like that.
#1 - McDonald's has had a history of keeping their coffee at unsafe temperatures and had, in fact, settled hundreds of lawsuits out of court for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company had been made aware that their coffee was prepared and served at dangerously hot temperatures, but refused to change their practices.
#2 - The woman in the infamous 1994 case you're referencing (Stella Liebeck) suffered 3rd-degree burns and was in the hospital for over a week for skin-grafting procedures. Her personal losses - medical expenses, loss of work time, etc. were about $18,000 and she originally asked McDonald's to pay $20,000. McDonald's offered her $800.
#3 - Since McDonald's refused to cover her medical expenses, Ms. Liebeck took them to court. The jury found McDonald's 80% responsible for the incident, and thus reduced the original $200,000 award to $160,000 in compensatory damages. They also awarded punitive damages of nearly $3 million - a figure they arrived at by calculating how much McDonald's makes on coffee in 2 days. (That's right, McDonald's was making OVER $1.3 MILLION on JUST coffee each DAY, but refused pay $20,000 in medical expenses.)
#4 - The punitive amount was reduced by the judge to just under half a million dollars. McDonald's appealed, and eventually the case was settle for an undisclosed sum LESS than $600,000.
If anything, McDonald's got off too easily.
Also, society is MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS. The U.S. Constitution guarantees many INDIVIDUAL rights (e.g., speech, bearing of arms, fair trial, etc.) The Constitution does not GIVE you your rights, it is designed to limit the GOVERNMENT'S ability to curb those rights. People have the right to assemble and protest. The government does NOT have the right to bully them or stop them in any way, unless they pose some other danger - which these people have clearly NOT.
Because if you don't have any idea what's going on, you're not allowed to feel cheated or annoyed by it at all, when you find out that people at the top who don't do real work are getting paid millions, while you're scrubbing their bathrooms for minimum wage.Razada said:
Clearly if you don't have a Masters in You have no views! So who here has been in the army and studied War, and religion, and Middle Eastern culture? Because if you haven't done those three things(At least) Your views on Isreal/Palastine/Middleeasternextremists doesn't matter!
it is alarming to me that somebody with so little understanding of economics, the banking system, and protesters should be allowed to present themselves as an authority on all three.
So I can't call someone a dunce because he doesn't realize that recorded history goes back further than 9000 years (which was the first recorded currency, by the way)? I honestly couldn't care less if I get banned for speaking my mind, I'm a strong believer in free speech, and it would honestly be this forum's loss as far a I'm concerned.Daystar Clarion said:
I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to the school of thought where history only counts if the British said it did, but in my opinion recorded history stretches back to Mesopotamia, making the earliest recorded history 11,500 years old. Money as I said, around 9,000.
You know what, for that matter, to really send home my point, because you're clearly blind to the true nature of reality: WHO CARES ABOUT RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY! We're a blink in the eye of time, this planet has existed for BILLIONS of years, and for ALL of those BILLIONS of years, there were no humans, and as such NO CREDIT! I doubt the Dinosaurs were worried about building good credit so they could afford a nice nest in a good neighborhood. Maybe you should ask the birds about their complex credit system.
No matter what any of you think, credit, especially IN IT'S MODERN FORM (For being on a forum you people have a hard time reading...), is nothing more than an experiment made up by the ruling class, and isn't a totally necessary part of reality.
And if you can't see how it's a corrupting and dangerous element that blinds people to their actual situation as the pauper working class that makes up 80+% of our population then I think I'm within my rights to call you a blind little fool.
P.S. My big problem here, and why I'm being so offensive is that you people are calling me out as wrong when you haven't even done research, and I'm so sick of seeing that on forums. Why must places like this be filled with people who think they learned everything they need to know in High School? Why when I make an accurate statement that counters something you thought you knew, why do you just blindly reply saying I'm wrong instead of taking the five seconds to Google it and open your minds to a new possibility.
But no, you have to be right, because I have less than 100 posts, so clearly I must be a five year old.
This is my problem with forums and why I couldn't care less if I get banned; WAY WAY WAY too many people talk out of their ass without the shit to back it up.
Anyone else think it's kind of interesting that in a thread talking about police brutality and oppression, the mods are banning people for speaking their mind?
Edit: Well it's happened twice.
Edit: Well it's happened twice.
Heh, I think it's both at this point, they took the bits of each that worked best and combined them.Danny Ocean said:
Well if you're a strong believer in free speech, you'd know that it doesn't exist on an international forum run by a private company that has set up a set guidelines that you have agreed to follow when you made your first post here.AnotherAvatar said:
In short, you voided your right to free speech.
They're not having a hard time reading. The problem is that your definition of 'Modern Credit' is far more specific than theirs. Credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern' way of borrowing.AnotherAvatar said:
Furthermore, the emboldened section is hardly emblematic of the kind of 'open mind' you believe we all lack. You seem remarkably unable to give the people you're talking to the benefit of the doubt.
People who are used to speaking from a position of knowledgeable authority and who actually wish to change peoples' minds, rather than waggle their knowledge in their face, have to develop a way of addressing less knowledgeable people that does not alienate them. They don't insult them, they don't belittle them, and they don't act so superior. What they do do, is teach them. Respectfully, patiently, and with suitable vocabulary.
Your inability to maintain said demeanor in the face of this meager questioning of your intellect:
Only serves to present you as someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about, and who hides that fact behind insults and vague terms; or as someone who is so arrogant as to render the knowledge he possesses useless due to an inability to effectively and personably communicate it.Kendarik said:
So please, if not for anyone else then for yourself: grow up.
There's speaking you're mind, and there's insulting people for no reason.Rockchimp69 said:
Insults have no place in intelligent debate.
Banks = good.
Banks runs = VERY VERY VERY BAD
Stupid people....don't they understand that mass bank runs will crash the economy?
The people who will hurt the most are NOT the "big corporations", it will hurt everyone.
Everyone just needs to sit down for a while and learn a little about Economics before they start doing drastic things without knowing what will happen.
Banks runs = VERY VERY VERY BAD
Stupid people....don't they understand that mass bank runs will crash the economy?
The people who will hurt the most are NOT the "big corporations", it will hurt everyone.
Everyone just needs to sit down for a while and learn a little about Economics before they start doing drastic things without knowing what will happen.
Best possible response to that: PFFFBTDanny Ocean said:
I don't need to follow rules to sway people to my side when I'm right. If everyone wants to keep this shitty system going even though it flies in the face of reason and has proved it's self detrimental to the human condition then I'll just shrug and let the human race doom it's self.
I'm a part of it but majority does rule, and while I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with that thought, it is simply the truth. And sadly the majority are morons who think drinking fluoride is healthy, and that they should be able to afford things beyond their means because... well just because!
I say if they're going to burn it down anyway that really we should do it quicker.
My biggest problem with your argument is that it only has one point about my issue and the rest is just a critique of how I present myself. And your one point on the issue is "not a lot of people understand the phrase modern credit" to which I say: well maybe they shouldn't be so droolingly stupid, maybe take an economics class or, you know, switch your brain on and ponder how the word modern is used...
Yet another case of "well, you're right, in every way, but I don't like the way you said it..." Cry me a river, I'm not here for your enjoyment, I'm here to make a point and hear other's points, but it doesn't seem that anyone has one (any of my opponents I should say, there are other people saying good things on here).
And to end on a childish note: Nice screen name. (Can you hear my eyes rolling?)
I did, but I also know the rules of this place, and I'm quite far from a full warning meter.maddawg IAJI said:
So, in a way I do have free speech on here, I just can't say too many offensive things in one sitting.
Which isn't hard or anything. This is actually the first heated discussion I've had on here. On forums, I'm usually pretty good about letting the idiocy of others slide go, I figure if I don't like it I don't have to read it. But when people are talking about something that matters A LOT right now, and they're doing so out of their ass using nothing but the propaganda that has been spread around by the ruling class...
Well I just can't sit silent, and I can totally get a bit heated.
As I said though, I have no fear of getting banned. Like at all. Even if it happens it's the slightest slap on the wrist. And at this point my reaction would simply be: "Oh, well I guess I just won't waste my time typing out paragraphs of meaningful text so that no one will read it, and the only people who do will just be fools so deeply opposed to it that they'd rather just spout non-sense about it not being true without so much as a google search to back them up. THANK FUCKING GOD! Let's go make some music."
(Not saying you're a fool by the way, I don't think I've debated anything with you yet. Just to clarify.)