Ha, ha, ha. You actually think the managers of a corporate structure are going to give up control?
It can only be changed by the people.
And those very same Nordic countries have single-payer and a stronger safety net. Do they not?
So these don’t have effects on the government and the so-called “free-market”?
How naïve can you be?
So you are admitting they do steal money? Just at the behest of the ruling class. So that is okay?
Well, zep won’t take the government out of the market because he wants free money.
Not in a socialist country.
Because zep doesn’t want to stop this cos he thinks he’ll lose his free money.
No. It’s terrible. If only zep would agree to get the government out and put a stop to it. But he thinks he’ll lose his free money. Shameful!
Who knows? I would think legal marijuana would prevent at least a few opioid deaths by allowing for the legal use of a safer intoxicant. I doubt it would prevent a huge number, because you can’t take the stupid out of a lot of folks.
What has stopped you from creating a co-op?
liberalization of financial
markets must be seen as a key step in the development of the
market economy in the Nordic countries. It led to a rapid development
of financial markets with interest rates determined by the
market rather than administrative regulation, improved liquidity,
a broad variety of financing alternatives and investment outlets,
and better possibilities for managing risk.
Did the Nordic countries have a different way of doing such?
[quote=“dt79, post:1803, topic:242703”]
So are you saying that my arguments were right?
What happened when the U.S. deregulated markets and “liberalized” them?
As I stated before, I could not easily find the study. And I didn’t save it.
Like the study said financial liberalization from the policy makers may not be properly understood and the risks may be inherent.
Okay, let’s say you’re right. Are you telling me that the body of the article disproves the title?
I never said that. If you have ever worked a day in your life, you wouldn’t have made this assumption and ended up looking stupid. They will have no choice but to evolve.
The people who aren’t leeches and bums who want their government to wipe their asses for them. But the top down structure will never be abolished. It will just become flatter. Because in this world, there are people who have built quantum computers and there are people who believe real socialism is a good idea and are anti-vaxxers. Guess where the latter normally end up?
Oh yes. But you argued against the Nordic model with regard to deregulation so you shouldn"t be one to talk about it.
The government is still involved in the market. Oh course it’s not free.
YES! I absolutely, positively, 100 percent agree that they will steal money! 101 percent!
Only silly little kid zep thinks they won’t.
However, I don’t think Bernie and cronies will do that at the behest of the ruling class since they can line their pockets without them if they’re in power.
And, no, it’s not ok. It’s horrible. I don’t know why you are in favor of this, zep. It’s shameful!
Bernie will print the money.
Like the current administrations for decades have done for the wars.
Please!
I didn’t write that. Try to keep your trolling straight
Yeah, then the PEOPLE may win instead of the brainwashed elite bootlickers like usmccds423.
The primary reason she’s covered is because she is an anomaly at this point. She beat the 4th most powerful Democrat by 15 points all the while by being outspent over 10 to 1.
Wow, she may not have the answer or be an expert on everything. Way to go guys. You’ve really made a succinct point.
What kind of stupid question is this?
Regulations as a whole have been increasing. Tell me what’s been happening? What have you been whining about day after day?
No, you bloody liar. I said you lied that the study you posted showed the “detrimental side of Nordic economies”. What a bloody liar you are.
I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt since you keep lying.
No, that’s not what it says. What do you think “for other reasons other than deregulation” means?
Second, you implied that the study showed “the detrimental side of Nordic economies”, meaning the intent of the study was to prove this subject. It was the exact opposite.
Third, the long term results, meaning their level of increasing prosperity, were very clearly stated to be a direct result of financial liberalization in the study.
Depends on the article. What I am saying is that the body of the article and/or the research it’s discussing almost always disproves the point you’re trying to make. There are like 4 examples in this thread alone of that happening. @ActivitiesGuy has debunked like 4 or 5 of your Stem Cell “research” articles. So has @Aragorn so on and so forth.
You either don’t read them or you don’t read them carefully enough.
Have cost us $2-$3T in total, M4A will cost that a year maybe 2. This talking point is weak sauce. Move on.
Then she shouldn’t talk about the things she’s not familiar with. Sounds like someone else I know.
Yes, that would be a great idea!
Let’s look at the ratio of posters here from all ends of the political spectrum who agree with zep’s opinions and those opposed.
The greatest thing you can do for conservatives, zep, is to have your own political platform too!
Ok, wait. This is so dumb I really need to get this clear.
You are saying the US should literally PRINT MONEY to pay for welfare.
Am I getting this right?
He doesn’t understand anything why would he understand currency devaluation and inflation?
What? You derelict! How much does the ink cost to print the money? You can’t get economies of scale from printing a lot at once that will offset inflation? If the workers at the printing factory own the means of production, they’ll get it done! It’s the moral thing to do! We can do a lot better.
