One Good Democrat?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?[/quote]

It was not the markets that rendered people unable to purchase, it was the FED(government, because afterall the FED and government are inseperable) who contracted the money supply, which resulted in a regular cyclical downturn becoming the Great Depression.

The Depression did not cause such a widespread contempt of Laissez-faire among people. I caused widespread contempt of laissze-fair for the progressives and their movement, which they used as a tool as propganda to then pursuade the people.

Your view, of the uneven distribution of wealth, is based upon the fact that government has to step in and redistribute the wealth, as Obama has said he will do. Those weak peope of then and those now, who like and want a nanny state are going to believe your view. [/quote]

Whatever you want to believe.

162

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?[/quote]

Because people like you do not understand what mercantilism, the Federal Reserve is not a capitalist tool, it is a mercantile tool, just like full employment is.[/quote]

So what? You take great pains to tell me that the US is “not capitalist,” but even if you are right, so what? This fantastical system is utterly irrelevant, as it was obsolete decades ago. So you can be correct, but only at the price of promoting an impossible system.

163

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?[/quote]

It was not the markets that rendered people unable to purchase, it was the FED(government, because afterall the FED and government are inseperable) who contracted the money supply, which resulted in a regular cyclical downturn becoming the Great Depression.

The Depression did not cause such a widespread contempt of Laissez-faire among people. I caused widespread contempt of laissze-fair for the progressives and their movement, which they used as a tool as propganda to then pursuade the people.

Your view, of the uneven distribution of wealth, is based upon the fact that government has to step in and redistribute the wealth, as Obama has said he will do. Those weak peope of then and those now, who like and want a nanny state are going to believe your view. [/quote]

Whatever you want to believe.[/quote]

Well, I guess the same to you.

164

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well myself am a Democrat, however it seems most of my party have left their original platform. And even though the Republicans have come closer in recent times to my parties platform than my actual party, I cannot bring myself to vote Republican (I neither vote Democrat, either).[/quote]

what is the original platform of the democratic party?
[/quote]

Look up Classical Liberalism.[/quote]

dont need to look it up, I am europeen. In europa liberalist meens classical liberalist.

[/quote]
you’re not european, you’re norwegian.

165

according to wikipedia 53% of the population of Niger is directly involved in crop production, which leads me to leap to the conclusion that capitalist or not Niger is one backwards motherfucking country.

Apparently, there has also been about a million years of draught that fucked them over, from 1960-1980. After that the rains are irregular and unreliable. I suppose it is possible that the capitalist money machine bought all the rain so as to fuck Niger over so that Lex Luthor could buy ocean front property in Arizona.

166

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
according to wikipedia 53% of the population of Niger is directly involved in crop production, which leads me to leap to the conclusion that capitalist or not Niger is one backwards motherfucking country.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Capitalist economic theory says that the country should specialize in whatever it is the most efficient at. If they produce crops more efficiently than manufactured goods, then they are doing the right thing by specializing in agriculture. After all, the world has to eat, right? Not everyone can be a manufacturing or service powerhouse. Someone has to produce the food.

167

[quote]Scrotus wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well myself am a Democrat, however it seems most of my party have left their original platform. And even though the Republicans have come closer in recent times to my parties platform than my actual party, I cannot bring myself to vote Republican (I neither vote Democrat, either).[/quote]

what is the original platform of the democratic party?
[/quote]

Look up Classical Liberalism.[/quote]

dont need to look it up, I am europeen. In europa liberalist meens classical liberalist.

[/quote]
you’re not european, you’re norwegian.[/quote]

wtf, norway lies in europa! that makes me both.