|
Post by Disgraced Ex-Prez Agent Orange on Sept 26, 2019 21:44:55 GMT
All Libertarians are bitter and middle aged.
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 26, 2019 23:22:24 GMT
Easily one of the stupidest comments I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Sept 26, 2019 23:49:51 GMT
^^^ Truth. Libertarianism speaks to the poorly educated of all ages.
|
|
|
Post by Mediocrates on Sept 26, 2019 23:57:13 GMT
Truth. Libertarianism speaks to the poorly educated of all ages. But not all races or genders, it turns out.
It takes a very specific kind of asshole to be libertarian.
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Sept 27, 2019 1:09:06 GMT
More truth.
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 27, 2019 2:52:26 GMT
^^^ Truth. Libertarianism speaks to the poorly educated of all ages. If you understood economics at all, you wouldn't be a liberal. But you don't, so you are easily deceived by left-wing propaganda But not all races or genders, it turns out. It takes a very specific kind of asshole to be libertarian. Talk to a leftist long enough and eventually the anti-semitic dog whistling starts Better to be an asshole than a non-playable character
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Sept 27, 2019 3:26:54 GMT
^^^ Truth. Libertarianism speaks to the poorly educated of all ages. If you understood economics at all, you wouldn't be a liberal. But you don't, so you are easily deceived by left-wing propaganda LOL, a libertarian economics scholar. Bless your heart.
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 27, 2019 11:35:07 GMT
fReE hEalThCaRe fReE eDuCaTiOn $15 mInImUm wAgE nEw GrEeN dEaL
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Sept 27, 2019 14:22:59 GMT
Free healtcare? Free education? Someone's gonna pay for it! And that someone is the working class. Our hard earned money being taken from us for what, a better educated and healthier society? Who cares about that?
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 27, 2019 15:59:53 GMT
Because socializing healthcare and throwing more money at education only addresses symptoms of the problems rather than the problems themselves. Not to mention that their plans will ultimately rely on printing money to pay for it all (inflation), which absolutely murders the poor.
|
|
|
Post by Aural Relations on Sept 27, 2019 16:31:57 GMT
Because socializing healthcare and throwing more money at education only addresses symptoms of the problems rather than the problems themselves. Not to mention that their plans will ultimately rely on printing money to pay for it all (inflation), which absolutely murders the poor. You seem to be making more general points about consumer behaviour, but to be clear, the US government would not fund a major expansion of the welfare system using monetary seigniorage. I've also not seen any evidence that tax-and-spend healthcare programmes are inflationary, as compared with the private insurance systems they relieve.
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 27, 2019 17:13:48 GMT
Because socializing healthcare and throwing more money at education only addresses symptoms of the problems rather than the problems themselves. Not to mention that their plans will ultimately rely on printing money to pay for it all (inflation), which absolutely murders the poor. You seem to be making more general points about consumer behaviour, but to be clear, the US government would not fund a major expansion of the welfare system using monetary seigniorage. I've also not seen any evidence that tax-and-spend healthcare programmes are inflationary, as compared with the private insurance systems they relieve. [ The US govt will fund whatever the voters demand. If that includes electing people like Sanders to implement a major expansion of the welfare system to be partially paid for by inflation, then it will happen. Tax and spend systems are not inherently inflationary because the govt can collect enough revenue to pay for them. But the idea that that is going to happen is laughable because the govt has not balanced the budget for over 20 years, and there is exactly zero talk of it coming from any of the Republican or Democrat candidates. The “private insurance system” you refer to in no way involves competing entities operating within a free market. They are a small handful of entities that have a monopoly that was granted to them by the state, thanks to laws like Obamacare and other decades of reckless regulation that have lead to the healthcare sector being one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the US economy. I have no doubt that a single payer system would cost less than the current US system. But transitioning from a corporate-state monopoly system to simply a state monopoly system is not going to solve the problems that lead to the high costs in the first place, which is decades of excessive reckless regulation designed by the state to subvert consumers for the benefit of corporate entities. And it will also lead to other problems that we don’t have, like shortages of goods and services thanks to the price ceilings that socialized systems require.
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Sept 27, 2019 17:42:19 GMT
^^^ Truth. Libertarianism speaks to the poorly educated of all ages. If you understood economics at all, you wouldn't be a liberal. But you don't, so you are easily deceived by left-wing propaganda But not all races or genders, it turns out. It takes a very specific kind of asshole to be libertarian. Talk to a leftist long enough and eventually the anti-semitic dog whistling starts Better to be an asshole than a non-playable character
American libs are not leftists.
|
|
|
Post by Aural Relations on Sept 27, 2019 18:01:47 GMT
Can you think of a recent spending programme that has been funded through seigniorage? I can't.
Who on the Democratic left proposes to simply borrow or print their way to funding a state-run healthcare system? If Medicare-for-All happens, it will be through the proportion of gross wages/labour cost represented by health insurance being swept up by higher rates of business/payroll tax, income tax, or by a new supplementary tax like the UK's national insurance. When all is said and done, the amount you take home in your pay packet will probably not change dramatically in the short term; the promise, however, is of a longer-term easing of healthcare inflation.
As a foreigner, I have to wonder why the threat of inflation seems to be such an enduring boogeyman to fringe groups on the American right. Consider the much-loathed QE programmes, which amounted to an exchange of longer-termed assets for liquidity: Whilst the 2008-11 tranches represented the single largest increase in the US money supply in history, the result was for the country to only narrowly avoid deflation.
Of course, facts like these do little to soothe the nerves of people like Ron Paul, a man who has predicted 20 of the past 2 recessions. His batting average there is only slightly higher than his record on predicting hyper-inflationary spirals. I guess monetary economics and debt markets are considerably more complex than a few episodes of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose might have led him to believe?
|
|
|
Post by aggressivebeta on Sept 27, 2019 19:14:41 GMT
Can you think of a recent spending programme that has been funded through seigniorage? I can't. Who on the Democratic left proposes to simply borrow or print their way to funding a state-run healthcare system? If Medicare-for-All happens, it will be through the proportion of gross wages/labour cost represented by health insurance being swept up by higher rates of business/payroll tax, income tax, or by a new supplementary tax like the UK's national insurance. When all is said and done, the amount you take home in your pay packet will probably not change dramatically in the short term; the promise, however, is of a longer-term easing of healthcare inflation. There is no such thing as “healthcare inflation”. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon caused entirely by the central bank changing the money supply at a higher rate than the rate the output of goods and services is changing. Anytime the government cannot collect enough revenue to finance its deficit spending, the Fed steps in as the lender of last resort to increase the money supply. Secondly, SS/Medicare payroll revenue do not go into a fund specifically delegated to those things. They are simply names of revenue generating schemes and nothing more. The revenue generated from those taxes can and will be spent by Congress on whatever is most politically expedient at the time. It does not necessarily have to be Medicare or SS. Unless the budget is balanced, a large portion of whatever the govt spends money on will be financed by inflation. It’s inevitable that if we have socialized medicine that Congress will starve funding to it to it to pay for whatever war the president wants to wage that year, or to bailout whatever banks fail, or to spy on American citizens, etc. As a foreigner, I have to wonder why the threat of inflation seems to be such an enduring boogeyman to fringe groups on the American right. Consider the much-loathed QE programmes, which amounted to an exchange of longer-termed assets for liquidity: Whilst the 2008-11 tranches represented the single largest increase in the US money supply in history, the result was for the country to only narrowly avoid deflation. That’s because the velocity of money was not sufficiently high enough to trigger runaway inflation, but the possibility was very real considering nothing like that had ever been done before and the The Fed’s historically horrendous record of being able to keep the economy stable. It caused the Great Depression and was largely responsible for the Great Recession and the stagflation of the 70s/80s. Inflation and artificially low interest rates designed to boost the velocity of money is not a “boogeyman”, it’s bad because the rising prices that result acts as a flat tax on the poor. That alone is a good enough of a reason to abolish it. It also encourages people to spend money they otherwise wouldn’t, which creates artificial credit bubbles that inevitably burst...like the one that’s about to burst.
|
|