Well ya, when you can't back up your claims, and you get your ass handed to you constantly, I guess I would have to laugh too. Just to stop myself from crying...
So keep laughing, there's nothing I hate more then a soggy groundhog.
Corporatism Discussion
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
So keep laughing, there's nothing I hate more then a soggy groundhog.
So which part got me PWNED?
The part where I asserted and affirmed that Prescott was never convicted of any wrong doing?
The part where I asserted that many people profit, some unknowingly from multinational companies?
Or the part where I made your article and you look stupid?
If I post pictures of your Mom too, will that mean I win?
Ah, now look at that -- so paranoid that she has to mention someone's mom. Now do you see who's paranoid?
So weak. So easy. Poor pitiful sis. Tsk tsk.
So weak. So easy. Poor pitiful sis. Tsk tsk.
Of that I have no doubt. Keep waiting, you aren't my type.
Still waiting for some proof.
Awww, so what you're gonna commit hara kiri in protest? LOL!
Still waiting for your proof sweety.
Still waiting for your proof sweety.
I said that where? Are you delusional?
Proof of what?
That you're an idiot?
Look at your article.
I already proved it a fraudulent piece. The ball's in your corner to prove me wrong.
He was never convicted. Prove that wrong. From your own links.
Other people, not affiliated with that firm had their assets frozen as well. Prove me wrong. From your own links.
Many people work for or have investment portfolio's containing questionable multinationals. From your own links.
If any of this is to hard to comprehend, I might suggest going back to school.
Last edited:
You can post all the childish pic's you want, I'm still waiting for proof. I'm hopped up on coffee and all ready to go.
You can't really be that daft can you?
I have been drinking decaf coffee for several months now. My local cafe was out, so I had a regular. I'm running on a caffeine rush. As in all hopped up. I understand that you see things that aren't there, but that was a stretch, get help.
There are plenty of other ways to put money into the economy besides corporate welfare. For example, in times of deflation we can lower the bank lending rate, and in the event that we drop it down to zilch, there's still the option of printing money then to counter that deflation and redirect it towards paying off the national debt. Alternatively, tax cuts in select sectors of the economy. There is no reason for corporate welfare. I prefer free markets myself, but if we insist on turning to a welfare state, then for crying out loud, at least redirect that money towards helping the least fortunate, not the most fortunate. We know where their interests lie.
Japan tried lowering their bank rate to zero - it didn't work out to well and they are still paying.
In the end, any/every economy absolutely needs 2 things to really prosper: Outside money that comes into the system and the movement of money (transactions) throughout the economy... Ultimately, this is a very big discussion that involves many variables, but in th end, the 2 areas I mentioned are critical.
You mentioned that there is always the potential to just print more money... That is an extremely dangerous game in that it acts to deflate the currency which results in an artificial inflation of the cost of living.
The best evidence for the severe impact that 'just printing more money' can have is represented through a strategy that the Nazis had contemplated - and that was to counterfeit US dollars and British pounds.. They Nazis would try to buy goods with the cash, but the big impact would be in the devaluation of the currencies (by flooding the market with the paper) and make the relative cost of the war more expensive for both nations.
A last comment: You make a reference that appears to suggest thatthe corporate welfare is directed at helping the 'rich'... You are waaayyy off base on that Machjo. Look into it yourself and leave the platitudes at the door. There is no question that if you apply an objective and critical analysis to the situation, you won't be banging the rich vs poor drum... It simply is not the case.
In the end, any/every economy absolutely needs 2 things to really prosper: Outside money that comes into the system and the movement of money (transactions) throughout the economy... Ultimately, this is a very big discussion that involves many variables, but in th end, the 2 areas I mentioned are critical.
You mentioned that there is always the potential to just print more money... That is an extremely dangerous game in that it acts to deflate the currency which results in an artificial inflation of the cost of living.
The best evidence for the severe impact that 'just printing more money' can have is represented through a strategy that the Nazis had contemplated - and that was to counterfeit US dollars and British pounds.. They Nazis would try to buy goods with the cash, but the big impact would be in the devaluation of the currencies (by flooding the market with the paper) and make the relative cost of the war more expensive for both nations.
A last comment: You make a reference that appears to suggest thatthe corporate welfare is directed at helping the 'rich'... You are waaayyy off base on that Machjo. Look into it yourself and leave the platitudes at the door. There is no question that if you apply an objective and critical analysis to the situation, you won't be banging the rich vs poor drum... It simply is not the case.
I never suggested that it would solve all problems, but it is an effective way to counter deflation.
As I'd mentioned, as a counter-deflationary policy, which implies too things:
1. That it would be used only in the event of deflation, and
2. That it would be used only to the degree that it puts a stop to deflation.
Of course I'd oppose printing our way out of recession and would certainly oppose that.
1. The Nazis were doing this on a large scale as part of an economic war strategy, and an effective one at that.
2. I'm not suggesting that any government rely on spending as its sole source of income. In fact, as long as we have a debt, it would not be wise to reduce governemnt taxes. Tax shifting might be fine, but certainly not an overall reduction in taxes, at least not until the national debt is paid.
I'm sure it's not intentional, but it is the result none-the-less. Think about it. You're giving the money to top bankers expecting them to pass the money downstream. Well, if the money goes through them downwards its natural that they're going to want a cut of the pie too.
I'd also mentioned above that any printed money could be used to pay off the national debt, thus killing two birds with one stone:
1. In times of deflation, it puts more money into the economy (through the hands of the lendors) to promote market demand for gooods, but at the same time...
2. It allows the government to take that money back out of the economy easily enough at the end of the recession to prevent inflation, by reducing government spending instead of having to pay so much out to lenders then.
1. In times of deflation, it puts more money into the economy (through the hands of the lendors) to promote market demand for gooods, but at the same time...
2. It allows the government to take that money back out of the economy easily enough at the end of the recession to prevent inflation, by reducing government spending instead of having to pay so much out to lenders then.
If we just give money to GM, it might create jobs now by putting money into the economy, but what about when the recession is over? Recessions are often followed by inflation. How will the government get that money back then?