[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Are you a PhD or something? You MUST have SOME credentials to come on here and swing it around the way you have…
[/quote]
The bigger question is…
Does he even lift?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I have no idea what will happen.[/quote]
Then why bring it up?
[/quote]Because it’s a further erosion of our RIGHTS. One more thing I neglected to add was that Obama added section 1031 which effectively repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of of 1878 - basically it allows the US military to perform Law Enforcement action on American soil. It’s a CHANGE to the status quo, a further shift of the balance of power in the FAVOR OF THE GOV’T. The Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who wanted us to be able to overthrow our government if it became a tyranny. That’s one of the founding principles. However, our government is doing everything it can to ensure it is never overthrown… And we are letting it happen.[quote]
Maybe he did it because he’s an underling to the Illuminati. Maybe he did it because he felt there were perfectly legitimate reasons that none of us know about. Maybe he did it because he got bored and wanted to do really dumb and pointless things that day.
Who knows.
The point is- What point is there in speculating and generally being alarmist without any evidence as to what the end-game is?
[/quote]How can we know for sure what the end game is. But if we look at history, any time a government does everything it can to disarm it’s citizens, it’s generally ended badly… [quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Or they die. I think it’s a fair statement that people in the 1930’s were far more adjusted to “surviving” than most people today. Some of them can’t find their way home without a GPS… Will they adjust? Perhaps. It’ll be fun to watch though, that’s for sure.[/quote]
Yes. People either adapt or they die. I agree with most of the people here in that social programs sort of render this moot, and that is problematic. I understand why the social programs exist, and I can sympathize (to a point) with the concept that people start on uneven ground and that may be unfair. Unfortunately, there are limits to everything and I think the big social-program proponents are ignoring the limits and dreaming too much. Heck, one can even argue that the basis of the modern social programs began on dreams. LBJ believed that our economy would never fall from the massive monster (relatively speaking) it was in the 60s and that poverty can actually be eliminated.
[/quote]LBJ wanted to create a permanent minority underclass. Remember this quote? “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference… I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years”. He didn’t have a “noble dream”, he had a disgusting racist strategy that happened to work… [quote]
But the above is besides the point right now.
I flat-out disagree with what you wrote above. You take any random guy in NYC in the 1939 and any random guy in NYC in 2014 and plop them down in the middle of a depression and they’ll both likely flounder. [/quote]Bullshit, people did not have the myriad of modern conveniances that we do now. There is currently an intrenched level of laziness and entitlement that simply could not exist back then.[quote]I don’t even know where this belief that people were tougher back then originated from. [/quote]Because they went to war, came back and didn’t cry about it. They did what they had to do without complaint. They took responsibility and their obligations seriously. They were less promiscuous and they worked harder. It was a very different generation. I spent a lot of time with those men at Ft. Howard Veterans Hospital when I was younger. My grandfather went there quite often before he died and I voluteered there even after he passed. Those men had something that today’s men lack. Call it what you want, but it’s tangible. [quote]
If it were the case then the Great Depression and all the people who suffered and had to live off the soup kitchen and have no jobs and such wouldn’t have ever existed.
People flat-out forget that WWII saved us. It was never the will of the people to survive a catastrophe. It was the biggest fucking war of all time.
[/quote]It was a UNIFIED country… Imagine that…[quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And what happens then? Who fills that power vacuum? Why is it unreasonable to assume that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE wants that to happen? When Rome fell, Europe descended into chaos for a while and then things kept going. Why does no one have an historical perspective on things any more? I mean, the United States of America is NOT permanent! Any more than the British Empire was in the last century. Shit happens… [/quote]
You’re arguing two different things here. I agree with the argument that the U.S. can never be a permanent power-structure, because that just goes against everything we’ve seen in history. Everything fails at some point.
But, from what I can tell, you’re conflating this with the belief that an economic collapse will harm the U.S. more than any other country, that the U.S. economy will not recover faster than the others, and that people will deliberately take advantage of this situation to our disadvantage.
[/quote]I LIVE in the US, just outside of Washington DC. I am worried about an economic collapse HERE. If it affects the rest of the world, and it probably will, that really won’t have an impact one way or another on MY area of operation.[quote]
In other words, I feel like you’re looking at it in too much of a “us vs. them” scenario. And I feel that you’re being far too American-centric here and ignoring all the problems the traditional enemies face.
Russia is in the middle of an economic melt-down, one that reveals just paper-thin its economy is. China is essentially a paper tiger and will remain a paper tiger unless some really really big changes in its economic and political infrastructure occur.
And who gives a shit about Iran and Europe. Europe is dependent on us to save them from big-scary Russia. We care about Iran only because the possible threat it poses to Israel, one that I’m not even sure is warranted since I think Israel can survive any war thrown their way.
I urge you to at least take a cursory look at our possible enemies and see just how weak they really are. The U.S. is a superpower beyond any other in the history of the world for a reason. As strong as the British Empire was at its heyday, it still had competitors and rivals.
We have no rivals in any possible definition of the word.
[/quote]Our rivals are at home. We are so polarized it’s not even funny. Other countries are watching us with amusement and caution, because as we continue to become more divided at home, we continue to burn bridges and antagonize our allies abroad, sucking up to our enemies, and sticking our nose in things that don’t concern us and that we don’t have the back bone to “enforce”. We can’t afford another war right now… The world KNOWS that. We have a Commander In Chief who doesn’t have a strategy to ties own shoelaces, much less deal with ISIS, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Etc…[quote]
At the push of a button we can obliterate any country we choose. Our country is so incredibly large, and the population so incredibly spread out, that any attack on us (both nuclear and conventional) has no hope of actually succeeding beyond pissing us off beyond imagination.
[/quote]I’m pretty sure that cuts both ways…[quote]
The economy of the world is dependent on the economy of the U.S. We haven’t even bothered to tap a fraction of the resources we have at our disposal, and when the need comes we’ll say “fuck you” to the environmentalists and harvest everything we need to survive.
The U.S. has proven multiple times that we can come together in a crisis, and I believe we’ll do so in the future.
[/quote]I honestly hope so.[quote]
Yes, we can and eventually will fail. The thought that it will occur in our life-time and that anyone recovers fast enough to take advantage of our plight is, imo, remote.
[/quote]I witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union in my lifetime. I witnessed the change from Carter to Reagan and everything after that. The only time our debt to GDP has been this high was during WWII… When we were united. What’s going to bring us together now to handle THIS fiscal crisis?[quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, I believe the government is run by short sighted fools who are influenced by a liberal MEDIA and care only about getting re-elected, so they will make ANY deal necessary with every “campaign contributor” they can find to pay for commercials that will program the average American sheep to vote for the politician who identifies the closest with whatever TV shows they tend to watch. There is NO WAY the government is run by ANYONE with a modicum of intelligence or foresight. It’s just human nature.[/quote]
If this is human nature, then clearly it has been the case even when the framers created the Constitution. Ergo, we’ve been victim to this flaw since day 1. In fact, politics always dealt with special interests. If you never have, I seriously urge you to study basic political history during the first 50 years of the U.S.
I daresay you’ll see that it was worse then than it is now.
[/quote]It was different. There was actual LIBERTY back then. There was no NSA spying on us, etc… it was a very different world. I am old enough to remember what LIBERTY actually FELT like. You younger guys have never hat that feeling. You’ve always had the fucking government up in your business. It was not always like that.[quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
IF the shit hit the fan I would make an assessment of the facts and make a decision that was best for my family. I MIGHT decide to take them out of the country - I have property and a thriving business in South America. I have contacts and business/employment opportunities in other parts of the world as well. I can pick up and go whenever I want.[/quote]
This is why we’re all nutjobs. We always think that, when shit hits the fan, at least one of our plans will work.
[/quote]I’m not foolish enough to believe that I’ve got every contingency planned for - I don’t. But I have several broad plans that I can tweak as the situation requires. For example, last winter, we lost power on my block. I had a generator. I was able to help my neighbors. One family had several young children and I was able to keep that family warm. No one else was able to do anything except go to a hotel. [quote]
It’s like how the hero in movies always can find a working car, or has an open path to drive said car.
[/quote]I’m prepared to do what I must. I can drive, walk or stay in place…[quote]
But to be serious for a second again- In what manner do you believe an economic collapse in the U.S. will affect the economies of S. American countries? Why do you think that you’ll be safer in some S. American country than here? Isn’t S. American countries already far more dangerous than the U.S.?[/quote]
I already have a thriving business in a third world country in South America that I own and is run by an extended family member. I have property there and I have assets there. This country is NOT dependent on the global economy hardly at all and is rich in natural resources. It’s where I plan to retire after I’ve sailed around the world. But the BIGGEST thing is the population density is a FRACTION of what it is up here.
[quote]magick wrote:
People flat-out forget that WWII saved us. It was never the will of the people to survive a catastrophe. It was the biggest fucking war of all time.
[/quote]
I know it’s off the original topic, and I don’t mean to derail anything, but I think it’s important to recognize that this is false.
The vermin that is Radical Islam has a goal: One World Under Mohammad. The biggest impediment is the West. So how do you defeat the West…
No, no, no not through freakin ISIS or car bombs or flying planes into buildings. That is the fringe. You do realize that, right? The real enemy (think the MB) believes in slow, patient infiltration and using liberalism and democracy against us. Look at London for God’s sake lads! Do you realize what they have done to that once great city?? The Muslim are on the slow path in America. It will not happen over night, but at this rate, it will come.
In 20 years, there will be several Muslim politicians. Maybe even a Muslim caucus.
In 50 years, Sharia courts won’t be laughable.
The only thing that can save us is the liberals. Seriously. Once the Gays realize they will be put in a gulag and Hollywood outlawed, then maybe, just maybe we can unite against this vermin.
CB, I would like your take on this video, your thoughts on it if you please.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
CB, I would like your take on this video, your thoughts on it if you please.
[/quote]
I’ll give you my take after watching this video Max. You see, I was just feeling pretty bad about myself after listening to AC, over and over again, lecturing that dimwit about not posting links, or references or anything to back up his statements. I never post anything to back up my statements. I just state my opinion and if I post any links it will most likely be an Avril Lavigne video or similar.
Now I feel pretty good about myself again because I realize I can just keep posting what I think and you guys will all come up with videos, links and references to support what I say. Cool.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Because it’s a further erosion of our RIGHTS. One more thing I neglected to add was that Obama added section 1031 which effectively repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of of 1878 - basically it allows the US military to perform Law Enforcement action on American soil. It’s a CHANGE to the status quo, a further shift of the balance of power in the FAVOR OF THE GOV’T. The Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who wanted us to be able to overthrow our government if it became a tyranny. That’s one of the founding principles. However, our government is doing everything it can to ensure it is never overthrown… And we are letting it happen.[/quote]
No, the system was meant to prevent the occurrence of tyranny through legal action, not allow us to overthrow the government if it committed tyrannical actions. What did Washington do when people claimed the government was being tyrannical with its taxes and rebelled?
He crushed it.
And then people promptly got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution, which created a powerful central government and gave it a great deal of power.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
LBJ wanted to create a permanent minority underclass. Remember this quote? “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference… I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years”. He didn’t have a “noble dream”, he had a disgusting racist strategy that happened to work…[/quote]
Can you source this quote? I’ve never seen it before and if it’s genuine and widespread then it would have caused a great deal of ripples and would be in pretty much every history book regarding LBJ and his social policies.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Bullshit, people did not have the myriad of modern conveniances that we do now. There is currently an intrenched level of laziness and entitlement that simply could not exist back then.[/quote]
How does the access to certain things make people lazier? Do you even have anything to back this claim up besides your personal opinion?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Because they went to war, came back and didn’t cry about it. They did what they had to do without complaint. They took responsibility and their obligations seriously.[/quote]
… You let me know when we have another war of such scale as WW2 and the U.S. institutes another draft. I can’t imagine how we can compare today’s generation with the generation that went to war then unless we have a similar situation.
Seriously, what does this even mean? Who the fuck cries about going to war right now? How can you even know? We have a fucking volunteer army.
Are you claiming that those who don’t enlist are cry-babies who don’t want to go to war? ~60% of all military servicemen during WWII were drafted. How the fuck can you even claim they knew their duty if they had to be forced to join, and you know that you can be shot for desertion or sent to jail if you attempt to avoid getting drafted?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
They were less promiscuous and they worked harder. [/quote]
First, coming from you and your claimed sexual conquests, the “less promiscuous” comment is just rich with irony. I suppose your promiscuousness is exempt?
Second, how do you know they worked harder?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It was a very different generation. I spent a lot of time with those men at Ft. Howard Veterans Hospital when I was younger. My grandfather went there quite often before he died and I voluteered there even after he passed. Those men had something that today’s men lack. Call it what you want, but it’s tangible.[/quote]
I volunteered at a local VA hospital for a couple of years back in high school. It was filled with a bunch of crotchety old assholes who complained about pretty much everything and wanted the nurses and doctors and volunteers to do everything for them.
Do I get to claim from this experience that all veterans are lazy and some such?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Our rivals are at home. We are so polarized it’s not even funny. Other countries are watching us with amusement and caution, because as we continue to become more divided at home, we continue to burn bridges and antagonize our allies abroad, sucking up to our enemies, and sticking our nose in things that don’t concern us and that we don’t have the back bone to “enforce”. We can’t afford another war right now… The world KNOWS that. We have a Commander In Chief who doesn’t have a strategy to ties own shoelaces, much less deal with ISIS, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Etc…[/quote]
Again, you’re focusing too much on the issues we have at home and ignoring the issues other countries face.
And we’re hardly as polarized as the Democrats and Republicans were during the eve of the U.S. Civil War or the Federalist Party and Jefferson’s party (their name is too long and this is pretty much an apt nickname) were all throughout the early years of the U.S.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m pretty sure that cuts both ways…[/quote]
Not entirely sure what you mean by this. But if you mean that whatever I wrote can apply to other countries- no.
Russia is big, sure. But pretty much the entirety of its population and key industries are focused on a fairly small portion of said size. Same with China. For all its size, pretty much everything note-worthy in China are located on the coastal areas.
The same cannot be said for the U.S. At the very least you have the two Coasts, each separated from one another by ~3k miles. And that doesn’t even include Texas.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union in my lifetime. I witnessed the change from Carter to Reagan and everything after that. The only time our debt to GDP has been this high was during WWII… When we were united. What’s going to bring us together now to handle THIS fiscal crisis?[/quote]
Regarding the fall of the USSR and such- Fair enough. It’s clear you’ve seen more than I have.
We were hardly united during the Roosevelt years. The Republicans hated his guts, remember?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It was different. There was actual LIBERTY back then. There was no NSA spying on us, etc… it was a very different world. I am old enough to remember what LIBERTY actually FELT like. You younger guys have never hat that feeling. You’ve always had the fucking government up in your business. It was not always like that.[/quote]
What does LIBERTY actually feel like?
I’ve never felt the government intrude in my life. While the NSA spying is unacceptable and clearly a violation of everything the U.S. should hold dear, it had no genuine impact on my life. I’m sure the same cannot be said for many other people, but the fact is I’ve never felt restricted by the government in deciding what I want to do.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
comparing old people who lived in the USA, and paid taxes their whole lives to someone who has been in the country a week?
One has earned the right to benefits, the other has earned nothing. Big difference imho[/quote]
I didn’t intend to compare anything.
I meant it more as a tongue-in-cheek statement. Medicare and its funding/operation cannot be touched by either parties because the old people will get pissed off if anything changes and they’re negatively impacted.
And it got to the point that they’d rather let newly minted citizens gets benefits instead of just raising the legal residency requirement to something more than 5 years.
That being said… Your post is off. Unless this Wikipedia article on Medicare is off.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I know it’s off the original topic, and I don’t mean to derail anything, but I think it’s important to recognize that this is false.
[/quote]
As a general rule I disregard opinion pieces, especially if they make what appears to be a correlation/causation fallacy over and over and writes as though he has a serious bone to pick.
Regarding the broken glass fallacy- AFAIK, it’s not so much the military spending but rather the fact that millions of unemployed Americans found employment.
There are clearly a myriad of things that combined to end the Great Depression. No doubt lowered taxes help, but I really don’t like how he focuses solely on that. Lowered taxes don’t mean shit if people are unemployed/don’t have disposable income to begin with to create demand.
Then the War provided millions of people with well-paying jobs and they couldn’t even spend said money for many years, due to restrictions on the economy and military deployment. This gives people a lot of capital. Add to that the lowered taxes and all the goodies from the G.I. Bill? Lots of demand for goods because people have lots of disposable income. The industries must fire up to match the demand. Lots of new jobs. Blah blah blah.
It also helps that the industries of pretty much every other 1st world country is gone and the U.S. needs to up supply to feed their needs too.
This is the way I learned it. I’m actually surprised that many of the basic websites online aren’t explaining it in a similar manner.
I thoroughly disagree with the explanations given in sites like this-
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/history/why-does-the-great-depression-end-when-the-united-states-enters-world-war-ii
Particularly the part about how the New Deal made any positive impact.
No. It. Did. Not.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
CB, I would like your take on this video, your thoughts on it if you please.
[/quote]
These types of videos and polls are purely made to instill fear among people.
Al-Q and ISIS and “radical Islam” is a joke. If these polls are accurate, they have the backing of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people and multiple nations and therefore billions if not trillions of dollars (Saudi, Abu Dhabi) to impose Sharia Law upon the West.
How much traction have these people gained in the US over the last 25 years? Despite apparently having MILLIONS of people willing to commit atrocities against America and more than enough finance to do so, they have barely done a single thing. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING any terrorist action/casualty is terrible of course.
My main point in all of this is and has been:
- if all these numbers constantly bandied about are true, why have they been so PATHETICALLY unsuccessful?
- they have essentially an unstoppabble army of tens of millions of suicidal soldiers and unlimited funds and over the course of DECADES what have they managed to do in the West?
During a similar time period the IRA managed to kill 1,800 civilians as well as bomb a Government conference containing much of the Parliament and the Prime Minister.
What has “radical Islam” done in the UK which is comparable to that? Nothing! How could Ireland a country of less than 5m and with infinitely less financial backing do this but “radical Islam” cannot? Honestly what is the answer to that? Aside from 9/11, where are the similar attacks on the US?
Muslim countries want Muslim laws, no shit! And so what! Countries like Saudi Arabia want to live in the Stone Age. Not everyone wants “Western Democracy” as imposed by America. Would I like to live under Sharia Law/in Saudi Arabia? No! Fuck that! I’ve got no interest in going there.
But just because people in Indonesia/Saudi Arabia/wherever who are Muslims want everyone to be a Muslim doesn’t mean the End is Near. I’m sure Christians would like everyone to be Christian and all atheists for us to all be atheist.
The polls in these videos are just meaningless bullshit. If the numbers were true there would have already been nuclear war/armageddon by now.
A suicidal army of tens/hundreds of millions with the backing of hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars would be unstoppable.
[quote]magick wrote:
What does LIBERTY actually feel like?
I’ve never felt the government intrude in my life. While the NSA spying is unacceptable and clearly a violation of everything the U.S. should hold dear, it had no genuine impact on my life. I’m sure the same cannot be said for many other people, but the fact is I’ve never felt restricted by the government in deciding what I want to do.
[/quote]
I don’t have time today to address everything, but I will address this.
How much have you actually done? As in, how many businesses have you started and run? How many homes have you built? Or bought? How long have you been banking? How long have you been paying taxes? Have any international assets? Tried to import or export anything? Ever tried to transfer money or take money out of the country?
Do you have kids? Ever spanked them? Ever told them to go outside and come home when the street lights come on? Ever done anything “mischievous”? Or just wanted to walk alone at night without being bothered? How many things have your bought and sold?
Ever flown without taking your shoes off? Ever driven to Canada with just a driver’s license? They can prosecute a librarian now for TELLING you that the US government is investigating you. Same for bankers.
If you don’t have any experience doing any of those things, then you wont know the difference. When I was younger and starting in business, I could do ANY of that unimpeded. Now, they want your social security number to open up a fucking BANK ACCOUNT! If you deposit or withdraw more than ten thousand dollars, you bank HAS to notify the government. If you want to bring IN more than 10,000 you have to declare it. Why? What does that information have to do with GOVERNMENT?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, many international banks simply won’t accept any new American clients.
It didn’t used to be that way. You could do what your wanted, as long as you weren’t hurting anyone else.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
When I was younger and starting in business, I could do ANY of that unimpeded.
[/quote]
It’s funny you mention this. I’m reading Total Recall at the moment. I just finished Arnold’s early career through his first 2 Olympia titles. The man started a mail order business and a brick laying business (with Franco Columbu) while barely able to speak English. The license requirements were non-existent. IRC, they paid California around $50 and were “in business.”
That is definitely not how it works today.
Wouldn’t a characteristic of a totalitarian or tyrannical government be the facts that no association can take precedence over it in its citizens’ lives, and that no productive activity is allowed without its approval?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If you don’t have any experience doing any of those things, then you wont know the difference.[/quote]
You’re right. In hindsight I shouldn’t have ever even bother to challenge you on this particular point. There’s no way I can even say anything constructive given the gap of experience between you and I.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Why? What does that information have to do with GOVERNMENT?
It didn’t used to be that way. You could do what your wanted, as long as you weren’t hurting anyone else.[/quote]
Fraud? Embezzling money? Lots of things I suppose.
Afaik, the issue comes down to safety and security vs. freedom, as… always.
People see things like the Enron scandal and demand the government does more to ensure shit like it can’t happen again. That results in more regulation, etc, etc, etc.
Millions of people will use the existing laws and freedom responsibly and without intent to harm others, but all it takes is just a couple bad eggs. And then it seems obvious that we have to make changes to ensure that those events can’t repeat themselves. That’s how things are.
The eternal question is, how much damage is acceptable?
[quote]magick wrote:
Regarding the broken glass fallacy- AFAIK, it’s not so much the military spending but rather the fact that millions of unemployed Americans found employment.[/quote]
-Millions of unemployed Americans found employment through government spending; you just used different words.
[quote]
There are clearly a myriad of things that combined to end the Great Depression. No doubt lowered taxes help, but I really don’t like how he focuses solely on that. Lowered taxes don’t mean shit if people are unemployed/don’t have disposable income to begin with to create demand.[/quote]
-I don’t particularly care for the article either, but it was from a relatively mainstream site. There is more disposable income in the economy when taxes are lower. If the economy spends 70 alphas to produce 100 and the government takes 30 alphas from the economy, then how can growth occur? If the government only takes 20 alphas the next year, then 10 alphas can be reinvested to improve production. Government spending 30 alphas the first year should not get credit for the growth of the economy. Lower taxes for Scrooge McDuck will obviously not improve the economy, since he will just be swimming in more gold coins, but in the real world, real entrepreneurs reinvest some of those extra gold coins.
[quote]
Then the War provided millions of people with well-paying jobs and they couldn’t even spend said money for many years, due to restrictions on the economy and military deployment. This gives people a lot of capital. Add to that the lowered taxes and all the goodies from the G.I. Bill? Lots of demand for goods because people have lots of disposable income. The industries must fire up to match the demand. Lots of new jobs. Blah blah blah.[/quote]
-Yes, people spend money. A third party can create a boom-bust cycle. I’m not sure that’s in people’s best interest. Take enough money to hurt the economy-release a lot of money to allow the economy to grow-take enough money to hurt the economy…tell the people that your spending helped them and their spending hurt them.
[quote]
It also helps that the industries of pretty much every other 1st world country is gone and the U.S. needs to up supply to feed their needs too.[/quote]
-This is certainly true, although it is just a longer boom-bust cycle(works until the rise of the next dominant empire).
Spending on defense(courts/police/military) certainly seems to be necessary, but it does not improve the economy. It CAN allow the economy to grow in spite of outside threats. Government spending can quickly BECOME that outside threat.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-Millions of unemployed Americans found employment through government spending; you just used different words.[/quote]
Not quite. The broken glass fallacy and its application to WW2, as I’ve read in some other site, is that the government spending on materiel and such spurred the economy.
I am saying that the government employing people and giving them capital to work with spurred the economy.
So, yes, the government spent money in both cases. Yes, if those people had jobs to begin with then the fact that they employ people doesn’t necessarily amount to much, since other people need to be taxed to pay other people wages.
But these millions of people had no jobs. They had no resources to pay taxes with. Then the War occurred and they got jobs and built up a capital that they couldn’t even touch until the war ended and they returned home. And then they had the G.I. Bill and tax-reductions; essentially meaning they get to spend very little of that capital to do whatever they want, and very little of it goes back to the government.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-I don’t particularly care for the article either, but it was from a relatively mainstream site. There is more disposable income in the economy when taxes are lower.[/quote]
Again, only if the people had disposable income to begin with. Which requires them to have jobs/some capital to work with.
WWII ended the Great Depression because it gave people a good deal of capital and the G.I. Bill which allowed them to spend very little of that capital for a lot of stuff. This is why the War was essential. You could reduce taxes down to 0%, but if people don’t have jobs or capital then what’s the point?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-This is certainly true, although it is just a longer boom-bust cycle(works until the rise of the next dominant empire).[/quote]
Oh come now. This and the quote above are just disingenuous. There is no such thing as infinite growth. Economics always follows a boom-bust cycle, or at least a growth followed by reduction and vice versa. The only question is how big the boom is and how big the bust is. Ideally the boom is big and the bust is small, but obviously it doesn’t work that way.
Islamists haven’t been successful in the past 25 years because they didn’t have the numbers. As they continue to invade, and their numbers increase, this will change. You see it in Europe with Islamists trying to declare Sharia zones, Pakistani pedophiles being shielded in Rotherham, Norway deporting their asses and crime dropping.
I’ve said this many times to friends and people. I have a friend in Serbia, and land or home ownership is based on reciprocity. So if a Serbian is allowed to own land where you are from, then you’re welcome to own land there. I think immigration should be the same way, if a citizen of (where you are from) is not safe in (country), then people from that country shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate, or should be extensively screened at their own expense. Letting in people from a country where you would just as easily wind up decapitated, with your organs removed, kidnapped, ransomed, whatever, doesn’t matter. People from those countries shouldn’t be welcomed as easily. It’s the most blatant Trojan horse tactic, and it is happening.
Google videos link of Sharia zone harassment
https://www.google.ca/search?q=uk+sharia+zones&num=50&safe=off&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ei=XxanVIySDsXnoAT0qoGgBg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1366&bih=643
Pedophile ring and complicit government officials
Norway deportation
http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/norway-deports-record-number-of-muslims-to-reduce-crime-31-increase/
Serbia land ownership
http://www.expatserbia.com/once-youre-here/accommodation-and-housing/432-buying-a-property-in-serbia
http://www.schoenherr.rs/pdf/serbia_article_re09.pdf
[quote]magick wrote:
Not quite. The broken glass fallacy and its application to WW2, as I’ve read in some other site, is that the government spending on materiel and such spurred the economy.[/quote]
-Labor is a material resource. I’m not sure why(well, I’m actually pretty sure that it has to do with the public indoctrination most of us received as children) it’s so hard for so many to understand that fact.